Case 2208035/2016 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Millin, Counsel v Respondent — 2018
- Case reference
- 2208035/2016
- Decision date
- 6 February 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Pearl Members
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Mrs HJ Bond, Mr J Carroll
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms L Millin, Counsel
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant worked in an environment where Mr Barca shouted and swore at staff, and that this conduct was supported by his own admissions and by corroborative evidence from other witnesses. It accepted that Lily made a series of age-related comments about the claimant being too old or less capable than the younger predecessor Marina, and it accepted that Mr Barca used sexually abusive language towards the claimant. The tribunal also rejected the suggestion that the disputed race allegation had any racial connotation.
Age-related harassment succeeded in respect of the incidents identified in the reasons as numbers 6, 8, 12 and 17, because the remarks were related to age and reasonably had the effect of creating a degrading or offensive environment. Sex-related harassment succeeded because the tribunal found that Mr Barca's use of terms such as "stupid cow" and "stupid cunt" was unwanted conduct related to sex and had the effect of creating a hostile environment. Claims against Mr Hall failed, and the tribunal held that the remaining age, race and general harassment allegations were not made out.
On the resignation issue, the tribunal held that the claimant's employment history showed a prolonged accumulation of abuse, and that the final shouting and swearing on 1 June 2016 was the last straw after which she resigned, giving four weeks' notice. It therefore found a constructive dismissal on ordinary employment-law principles. However, it concluded that the resignation was not because of age or sex, so the direct discrimination claim linked to the resignation failed.
No remedy was assessed in this judgment. The tribunal said there would need to be a remedy hearing unless the parties could agree terms, and invited the parties to submit directions within 14 days of the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Harassment succeeded against the First and Third Respondents on the age-related allegations. The tribunal accepted that Lily made repeated age-related comments, including comparing the claimant unfavourably with the younger predecessor Marina and telling her she was too old for the job; it found this conduct created a degrading or offensive environment. | Upheld | Age | — |
| Harassment | Harassment succeeded against the First and Second Respondents on the sex-related allegations. The tribunal accepted that Mr Barca used sexually abusive language towards the claimant, including calling her a "stupid cow" and a "stupid cunt", and held that those remarks created a degrading and hostile environment. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant resigned in response to a cumulative breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, with the last straw on 1 June 2016, and that she was entitled to claim constructive dismissal. It also held that the resignation was not because of age or sex, so the direct discrimination aspect failed; no remedy was determined in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The race-related allegation concerning the "fish and chips shop" comment failed because the tribunal held that the words had nothing to do with race. The remaining race-related allegations were also not made out. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 23 Equality Act 2010
- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- section 136 Equality Act 2010
- Igen v Wong
- Laing v Manchester City Council
- Madarassy
- Western Excavating v Sharp
- Malik v BCCI
- London Borough of Waltham Forest v Omilaju
- section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.