Mr C Milsom, of Counsel For v Respondent — 2019

The tribunal proceeded after the response had been struck out and accepted the Claimant's evidence on the balance of probabilities. It found that the Claimant had accepted an offer of employment with the First and Second Respondents, that the contract began on 1 September 2018, and that she did some work while based in the UK. It also found that the tribunal had territorial jurisdiction over the Equality Act and breach of contract claims because the connection with the UK was clear and strong.

The tribunal found that the alleged comments and messages by Mr Banayoti occurred and were unwanted. It held that the comments were related to sex, and that several were also conduct of a sexual nature. The tribunal found that the conduct had the effect of violating the Claimant's dignity or creating a humiliating or offensive environment, and that it was reasonable for it to have that effect. It also found that the dismissal and the failure to pay salary and relocation expenses were linked at least in part to the Claimant's rejection of Mr Banayoti's advances.

The tribunal found that the Claimant's solicitors' letter of 11 October 2018 was a protected act because it alleged breaches of the Equality Act. It found victimisation in the Respondents' failure to investigate the complaints and failure to pay salary and expenses. The tribunal found the corporate Respondents liable for breach of contract as employers, and all three Respondents liable for the Equality Act complaints. Remedy was reserved to a later hearing.