Mr T Perry (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2021

The tribunal accepted that the respondent workplace tolerated drinking, sexualised conversation and relationships between staff, and it found Mr T's management style to be blunt and sometimes rude. On the central events of 22 March 2017, the majority found there was sufficient time for the alleged hotel-room assault to have taken place, preferred the claimant's account over Mr T's, and drew adverse inferences from the absence of witnesses MB and ZB and from parts of Mr T's evidence that it regarded as implausible. Mr Shaw dissented, placing greater weight on the timing of the claimant's disclosure, her probation and performance concerns, and her credibility.

By a majority, the tribunal found that Mr T had sex with the claimant when she did not consent or lacked the capacity to consent. It therefore upheld the sexual harassment claim under s.26(2) Equality Act 2010, holding that the conduct was unwanted, of a sexual nature, and by its nature capable of violating dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The tribunal also noted the poor quality of the police investigation and said the claimant's later inconsistencies did not outweigh the evidence it relied on for the liability finding.

On the second claim, the tribunal held that the claimant resigned because of the assault, that the assault amounted to a fundamental breach of trust and confidence, and that continuing to work for a period while processing what had happened did not amount to affirmation. It concluded that the assault occurred because of sex and that the claimant's resignation flowing from it amounted to direct sex discrimination. No remedy or compensation was assessed in this judgment.