Charlotte Tilley v Gravitas Recruitment Group Ltd — 2023

The tribunal dismissed all complaints brought by Charlotte Tilley against Gravitas Recruitment Group Ltd: harassment related to sex, victimisation based on sex, direct sex discrimination, wrongful constructive dismissal, and unlawful deduction from wages. It found that she had been employed as a recruitment consultant from 8 July 2022 to 24 March 2023, and that the dispute arose from conversations in late 2022 and February 2023 about her sexuality, her relationship with Kieron Mattinson, and sexual comments made in the office, including the 'squirt' comment which the tribunal found she made.

On harassment, the tribunal held that the December 2022 and 2 February 2023 conversations were not unwanted conduct. It found that the claimant participated willingly in sexual discussion, used explicit language, and had images of naked male torsos on her computer screen saver. It did not find that the conduct had the purpose or effect of violating her dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. It also found that the 3 February meeting with Ms Hazlett and Ms Ellis was a proper response to complaints about the claimant, not harassment.

On victimisation, the tribunal found that the claimant did not do a protected act on 6 February 2023. Saying she did not trust her colleagues and wanted to move teams was not treated as a complaint of sexual harassment, and the tribunal preferred Ms Ellis's evidence that no such complaint was raised or implied. On direct sex discrimination, it held that Mr Mattinson was not an appropriate comparator because he was in a different, more senior role, and that no hypothetical male comparator would have been treated more favourably in relation to the removal from training, the claimant sitting at her desk instead of attending, the disciplinary invite, or the decision not to offer an exit interview.

On wrongful constructive dismissal, the tribunal applied the implied term of trust and confidence and found no breach. It accepted that Ms Hazlett removed the claimant from training because she thought it would not be a good use of her time, not for a sex-related reason. It said some of the disciplinary steps were not good practice, including going straight to a disciplinary process without investigation and not setting out all details at the outset, but no disciplinary hearing or sanction followed, the claimant was offered a grievance meeting, and the grievance process did not proceed because she was off sick. On the commission issue, the tribunal found that the policy gave the respondent discretion and that, after notice had been given, there was no entitlement to commission. No monetary award was made.