Mr A Jutrzenka v 17 Clarges Street RTM Company Limited — 2020

Mr A Jutrzenka was employed by 17 Clarges Street RTM Company Limited as Building Services Manager from 3 June 2019 until his dismissal in April 2020. The tribunal found that his texts and emails to Jolita Sacks between 26 November 2019 and 5 February 2020 were unwanted, of a sexual nature, and made her feel uncomfortable, intimidated and vulnerable. It found that Ms Sacks genuinely believed she had been sexually harassed and that her complaint to KFH on 12 February 2020 was genuine.

The tribunal found that KFH suspended the claimant on 13 February 2020 because it concluded his communications with Ms Sacks were capable of amounting to sexual harassment and because there was a need to safeguard her wellbeing. On that day the claimant reacted aggressively to KFH staff, refused to engage, left with keys, returned to the building, and the tribunal accepted that he assaulted Mr Hewitt-Lee by pinning him against a wall and likely assaulted Mr Fielden by grabbing his lapels. It rejected the claimant's case that Ms Chong smirked or enjoyed his removal, and found the police calls were reasonable in the circumstances.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's allegation that Ms Chong made derogatory comments about men, finding that those allegations were not credible and first appeared late in the grievance process. It also found no evidence of collusion between Ms Sacks and Ms Chong, or between them and KFH, about the grievance process or the DSAR disclosure issue. The tribunal held that the grievance and appeal handling was carried out by KFH, later involving Hunter Adams, and that the email of 12 February 2020 was withheld to protect Ms Sacks' safety following ICO advice.

Applying the Equality Act provisions on direct discrimination, harassment and victimisation, the tribunal held that the claimant's adverse treatment flowed from his own offensive and aggressive conduct, not from sex or sexual orientation. It found the claimant's grievances were protected acts, but that the respondent did not subject him to detriment because of them. All complaints were dismissed and no remedy was awarded.