In person For the v Respondent — 2020

The claimant was engaged on a three-month fixed-term contractor arrangement from 12 January 2018 to manage strategic partnerships, and the tribunal found that she had been brought in at Mr Fitzgerald’s behest rather than through the usual interview process. It found that Mr Danhieux and Mr Madou were not supportive of the partnership-led approach and that the dispute around the claimant’s role took place against an existing boardroom conflict between Mr Fitzgerald and Mr Danhieux.

On the sex discrimination claim, the tribunal accepted that the claimant was excluded from the 23 January 2018 San Francisco strategy meeting and from later team meetings and business updates. It nevertheless found that the reason was not sex: the claimant had been seen as Mr Fitzgerald’s appointee, other women were invited to relevant meetings, and the tribunal was satisfied that a man in materially similar circumstances would have been treated in the same way. The tribunal described the dispute as essentially a boardroom disagreement about strategic direction rather than sex discrimination.

On harassment, the tribunal accepted that the 14 February feedback from Mr Danhieux was unwanted, but it found that it arose from concerns raised by colleagues about the claimant’s proposed work, including the marketing of the Sensei product, and not from her sex. It also found that the 7 March collusion accusation and the 13 March Slack exchange were prompted by the claimant’s involvement with Nicole Fitzgerald and the proposal to remove Mr Danhieux as CEO. The tribunal found that the phrase 'you got balls' was a colloquial expression of surprise and annoyance, not conduct of a sexual nature, and that the claim therefore failed.

On victimisation, the tribunal rejected the claimant’s case that being put on leave, the handling of the handover, the appeal process, the taking of notes, and Mr Sheehy’s August 2018 comment about a possible £600 payout were because she had done a protected act. It found that the leave was connected to the end of the short contract and the management arrangements while the grievance was investigated, that the appeal delay was explained by Mr Thompson’s own leave and email issues, and that the appeal notes were not shown to be biased or manipulative. The tribunal therefore dismissed all claims and recorded no award.