In person For the v Mr J Gilbert, consultant — 2020

The Tribunal found that Mr Taylor subjected the claimant to unwanted conduct of a sexual nature over a period ending in 2017. It accepted evidence of repeated sexualised remarks and gestures, comments about the claimant's appearance, unwelcome flirting with other employees, and a suggestion that she do a pole dance at a Christmas party. Although the harassment complaints were presented out of time, the Tribunal extended time under s.123 EqA 2010 because it was difficult for the claimant to bring the claim while still employed, she did not know enough about employment rights until after leaving, and the delay caused little prejudice.

On the direct discrimination issues, the Tribunal rejected the allegation that Mr Taylor's allocation of the claimant's clients to Mr Baylis was sex discrimination because it did not have sufficient evidence that the allocation had actually happened. It also rejected the religion-based commission-structure complaint. The Tribunal accepted that there was a difference in treatment and a difference in religion, but it found that the refusal to move the claimant onto Ms Joelle Taylor's commission structure was not because of religion and was instead driven by financial reasons.

The Tribunal upheld unfair constructive dismissal. It found that the course of sexual harassment, together with aggressive and unreasonable treatment of employees and the unexplained refusal to change the claimant's commission structure, breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. That last straw was more than trivial, the claimant resigned promptly in response to the breach, and no potentially fair reason for dismissal was advanced. The Tribunal also held that the constructive dismissal itself was materially caused by unlawful sex discrimination, so that head of claim succeeded as well. The judgment did not record any monetary award.