Mr C Goh v Asda Stores Limited — 2023

The claimant, a man, complained that the respondent directly discriminated against him because of sex in the way it handled his allegations that a female colleague had assaulted him at work. The tribunal found that his complaint was not taken seriously between February and July 2019, that no meaningful action was taken for months, and that the investigation was delayed. It also found that the failure to interview Ms Kanagarajah was a detriment because she may have had relevant evidence about the alleged incident and the workplace background.

The tribunal found further deficiencies in the later grievance and Ethics process. It held that the grievance investigation did not properly grapple with the claimant's sex discrimination complaint, did not adequately probe relevant matters, did not use earlier evidence, and reached conclusions that were not supported by the minutes. The appeal was also found to have been mismanaged because it focused on moving matters forward rather than determining the substance of the claimant's complaints, and the outcome letter did not address the allegation of sex discrimination.

The tribunal constructed a hypothetical comparator of a woman complaining that a male colleague had kneed her on the backside, with related prior allegations. It found unexplained unreasonable conduct and additional matters sufficient to shift the burden of proof. As the respondent did not discharge that burden, the tribunal held that the respondent directly discriminated against the claimant on grounds of sex. The claim was found to be in time as conduct extending over a period ending with the appeal outcome on 3 June 2020.