J Wilkinson v Cleveland Fire Authority — 2022

The tribunal found that the claimant, a firefighter, had established two incidents of unwanted sexual conduct on 22 December 2021 and 31 January 2022 while on operational runs with Firefighter Kirk, Firefighter Froom and Watch Manager Colman. On 22 December it accepted that the men discussed female passers-by in sexual terms, and that Kirk said of one woman who approached with a delivery, "I would give her one", with Colman replying, "You would give anyone one." On 31 January it found that Kirk suggested taking "the scenic route" and repeatedly asked Colman what he could do with female passers-by seen en route.

The tribunal preferred the claimant's evidence on the balance of probabilities. It accepted her explanation for not setting out the incidents in detail in her grievance, including the timing of events in February 2022, her anxiety and medication, and her understanding that she would be able to add further information later. It also treated the Google Maps material and the WhatsApp evidence as supporting the wider credibility assessment, while noting inconsistencies in the respondent witnesses' accounts about the route, the stop at the Standard Pub, and later recollections of New Marske/Marske-by-the-Sea.

Applying section 26(2) of the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal held that the conduct was unwanted and sexual in nature, and that it had the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, humiliating or offensive environment for the claimant. It accepted her evidence that she felt intimidated and degraded, and rejected the suggestion that the incidents were too minor to satisfy the statutory threshold. It also concluded that it was reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.

On time limits, the tribunal held that the incidents on 22 December 2021 and 31 January 2022 amounted to conduct extending over a period, so the complaint was treated as having been done at the end of that period, namely 31 January 2022, under section 123(3)(a) of the Equality Act 2010. The complaint was therefore in time after allowing for the ACAS Early Conciliation period. Remedy was not determined in this decision; the tribunal recorded that a half-day hearing would be fixed.