Miss. Kim Beaney v Highways England and 2 others — 2018

The tribunal found that Grant Bosence contacted Miss Beaney immediately after her interview on 16 February 2017 using his personal phone, later continued messaging and telephoning her, arranged meetings outside work, and made sexual and romantic advances. It accepted the Claimant's account that she repeatedly tried to keep matters platonic and found her a credible witness, while finding the Second and Third Respondents unsatisfactory on the central disputes.

It upheld harassment complaints about the allocation of the Claimant to Sandiacre, the decision to place her with Steven Curtis, and Curtis's comments about Bosence, including that she 'could do worse', that he 'knew everything', and that she did not need to worry about what went on between her and Bosence. It dismissed other harassment allegations where the tribunal found the words 'troublesome', the later shouting, the 'have it out' remark, and the statement that the Third Respondent had not made statements about her were linked to workplace friction or argument rather than sex.

The grievance outcome of 7 June 2017 and the refusal to relocate the Claimant were held to be harassment because Malcolm Dangerfield treated the text exchange at face value and did not properly engage with the Claimant's evidence that she had felt pressured and had been trying to resist Bosence's conduct. The direct discrimination and victimisation limbs on those matters were dismissed. The tribunal also dismissed the complaint about the way Dangerfield conducted the grievance meeting and the notes of the appeal meeting.

By contrast, the tribunal held that Diane Naylor's conduct of the 4 August 2017 appeal hearing and her 27 August 2017 appeal outcome were harassment. It found that she had pre-judged the case from selected messages, challenged the Claimant in a confrontational way, and asked whether sexual intercourse had occurred between the Claimant and Bosence. The associated direct discrimination and victimisation complaints failed because the tribunal did not find that a male comparator would have been treated differently or that the protected acts materially drove those decisions.

The Claimant resigned on 30 August 2017 after receiving the appeal outcome. The tribunal held that the Respondent's conduct breached trust and confidence and that the resignation amounted to a dismissal for Equality Act purposes, so the direct sex discrimination complaint under section 39(2)(c) succeeded. The separate victimisation limb tied to the resignation failed. Remedy was not assessed at this stage and was to be listed for a later hearing. The pre-3 April 2017 harassment complaints and the 18 April 2017 'surprised to see her at work' complaint were withdrawn.