Represented herself For the v Respondent — 2021

The claimant worked for essDOCS EMEA Ltd from November 2019 and resigned in July 2021. She alleged sexual harassment by Mr Alexander Goulandris, sex discrimination, constructive and wrongful dismissal, and breach of contract arising from bonus and notice-pay issues. The tribunal recorded that she had raised complaints during her employment in September 2020, January 2021, February 2021 and March 2021 without mentioning sexual misconduct, and it treated the first allegation of sexual advances as having been made on 24 March 2021.

On the harassment allegations, the tribunal found that the claimant had interpreted ordinary work interactions as sexual conduct. It accepted that some incidents happened, including accidental contact and occasions when Mr Goulandris raised his voice or was abrupt, but found that these events were not conduct of a sexual nature. It rejected allegations such as winking, flirting, coded sexual emails, and deliberate touching. On that basis, the claims under section 26(2) and section 26(3) of the Equality Act 2010 failed.

The tribunal upheld two direct sex discrimination allegations. It found that Paul Gordon, while dealing with the grievance appeal, showed a picture supplied by the claimant to female staff and then told her that he had done so; that conduct was found to be because she was a woman, so allegations 7.9 and 7.10 succeeded. However, the tribunal rejected the wider sex-discrimination case, including the allegation that Mr Goulandris' conduct towards the claimant on calls and in project management decisions was because of her sex. It found those actions were explained by the transition of the BDT project to business as usual and by Mr Goulandris' general communication style.

The dismissal claims also failed. The tribunal held that the conduct it had found proved was not serious enough to amount to a repudiatory breach, so there was no wrongful dismissal or discriminatory constructive dismissal. It also found that the claimant resigned because of the alleged harassment and the grievance outcome, not because of the conduct that it upheld as sex discrimination. The tribunal therefore did not uphold the dismissal-related allegations.

The contractual bonus claim succeeded. The tribunal interpreted the bonus clause as a quarterly entitlement based on company, team and personal performance, and found that the claimant should have been paid the April 2021 quarterly bonus. It calculated that, once the company-performance element was excluded, she was entitled to about 60% of the £1,260 gross quarterly bonus, giving damages of around £600 net. It did not uphold any notice-pay claim or any later July 2021 bonus claim. Separately, the tribunal ordered the claimant to pay the respondent £5,000 costs because it found she had failed to exchange her witness statement in time, causing the final hearing to be postponed.