Mr I Hurst (solicitor) For the 1st v Respondent — 2024

The claimant brought direct sex discrimination, harassment related to sex and victimisation claims arising from the Las Vegas re:Invent conference in November 2022 and the events that followed. The tribunal found that the claimant and WB attended DoiT's Omnia event, that the claimant was intoxicated when she left, and that WB orally raped her in her hotel room in the early hours of 30 November 2022. It accepted the claimant's immediate report to the respondent and the police, and preferred her account on the assault over WB's because his investigation accounts changed materially over five interviews.

Despite that finding, the tribunal held that the assault-based discrimination and harassment complaints were outside its jurisdiction because the conduct was not done in the course of WB's employment. It found that the relevant conduct took place in the claimant's hotel room after the work event had ended, and that by that stage WB was acting personally rather than in the course of his employment. In the alternative, it held that the first respondent had taken all reasonable steps to prevent such conduct through its handbook, sexual harassment policy, alcohol policy and pre-event training.

The tribunal rejected the 'eating so much' allegation because it found the words actually used were a question about buying cake, not eating so much, and the complaint was out of time with no just and equitable extension. It also rejected the wider suggestion that the respondent had a drinking culture or that the Omnia event showed widespread intoxication among DoiT staff.

The allegations based on Ms Tronsky's 23 February 2023 letter failed. The tribunal found the letter was sent in the context of without-prejudice settlement discussions, and that its contents did not suggest that the claimant was at fault for being raped or for working under the influence of alcohol. Where the claimant did not pursue the allegation that the letter was sent directly to her, the tribunal treated that part as withdrawn.

All victimisation complaints failed. The tribunal found that the respondent gave the claimant significant support after her report, had de facto suspended WB on 1 December 2022 and formally suspended him on 9 December 2022, and allowed the claimant to return to work on light duties consistent with occupational health advice. It also found that no threatening redundancy email was proved, that the claimant's role had already been decided redundant in November 2022 before the protected act on 30 November 2022, and that her dismissal on 2 March 2023 was by reason of redundancy. No compensation award was made.