Ms A Stanemir v Sloane Square Hotel Ltd — 2020

Ms A Stanemir was employed as a receptionist by Sloane Square Hotel Ltd from August 2017. From January 2018 her line manager was Mr Fernando Morales. She alleged that he had punched or slapped her in August 2018, stood too close to her almost daily, touched or groped her leg when using the bin under her workstation, pressed his body and genitalia against her, and said he was doing her a favour by giving her shifts. The tribunal dismissed all complaints.

On the factual disputes, the tribunal did not accept that Mr Morales hit, slapped or punched the claimant in August 2018. It found that he was annoyed about an error and took control of the keyboard quickly, causing some physical contact, but not the conduct alleged. It also found that he generally stood close to staff in the reception area because space was limited, not because the claimant was female, and that he was not deliberately seeking to make colleagues uncomfortable. On the leg-contact allegation, the tribunal found that one or more accidental contacts occurred when he was putting something into the bin, but that this was not groping and was not conduct of a sexual nature. On the allegation that he pressed his body or genitalia into her, the tribunal found that did not happen; it accepted only that he sometimes tapped her shoulder to get her attention.

Applying section 136 of the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal held that the claimant had not proved facts from which sex discrimination or harassment related to sex could be inferred. It found that the reason for the proven conduct was Mr Morales's wish to deal with work matters, attract attention, or use the bin, rather than the claimant's sex. It also held that the claimant had not shown the conduct had the effect required by section 26(1)(b), because she was upset or annoyed but not subjected to an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The sexual harassment claim failed because the conduct found proved was not of a sexual nature.

The tribunal dealt with time limits under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 and the authorities in Hendricks, Lyfar and Aziz. It held that the August 2018 incident was out of time and was not part of a continuing act, and it refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis, noting prejudice from the absence of timely witness identification and the loss of CCTV footage after 30 days. The later allegations were treated as in time because the claimant said they continued until around 27 September 2018. The constructive dismissal complaint also failed: the tribunal found no breach of contract, no breach of the trust and confidence term, and no basis for saying the resignation on 29 October 2018 was caused by the respondent's conduct. All claims were dismissed and no award was made.