Farah Farook v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited — 2022

The claimant, an agency worker engaged as an administrative assistant, brought claims of victimisation and harassment related to sex after complaining on 29 July 2020 about alleged sexual harassment by Mr Fairburn. The respondent accepted that the complaint was a protected act for the victimisation claim. The tribunal found the claim was presented in time because the alleged matters formed a continuing state of affairs extending into the relevant period.

For victimisation, the tribunal considered seven alleged detriments, including not being provided with a work mobile phone, incidents involving Mr Toole, Teams meeting issues, termination of the agency engagement, and Mr Cockburn contacting the claimant's new employer. It found that some matters were capable of amounting to detriments, but accepted the respondent's explanations: agency worker phone policy and lack of a spare phone, genuine work-related performance concerns, Project needs, IT connection difficulties, and business-related reasons for ending the engagement and for Mr Cockburn's contact. It found none of the treatment was because of the protected act.

For harassment, the tribunal analysed the claim as a section 26(3) Equality Act 2010 claim. It reviewed the text, WhatsApp, telephone and in-person evidence concerning the claimant and Mr Fairburn's relationship, finding that much of the communication reflected a mutual friendship and was not unwanted conduct. It found some work-related comments by Mr Fairburn were unwanted but not sexual or related to sex, and did not have the purpose or effect of violating dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The tribunal also found that the alleged less favourable treatment was not because of any rejection of unwanted conduct. Both claims were dismissed.