Miss Megan Bratt v JGQC Solicitors Limited — 2024

Miss Bratt worked for JGQC Solicitors Limited as a legal secretary from 4 January 2022 until her resignation on 21 February 2022. She initially brought unfair constructive dismissal and sexual harassment claims, but the constructive dismissal claim was withdrawn and the tribunal proceeded only on sexual harassment under section 26(2) of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal directed itself to the statutory framework, including the subjective and objective limbs in section 26(1)(b) and section 26(4), and to the EHRC Code of Practice.

The tribunal rejected a number of alleged incidents because the evidence about date, context, or wording was unclear, or because the conduct was said to have occurred before the point when Miss Bratt said she first felt uncomfortable. It found that before 22 January 2022 neither the subjective nor objective test was met. It did not accept allegations about some comments on her relationship, some alleged remarks about his ex-wife, some allegations about her boyfriend, or the claim that a general introduction to Kevin Salter was inappropriate. It also gave limited weight to Shona Nelson's written evidence because she did not attend to be tested in cross-examination.

The tribunal did, however, find that several incidents occurred and amounted to unwanted conduct of a sexual nature when considered cumulatively. These included the WhatsApp message sent on 25 January 2022 that became problematic when Mr Hall later said in a meeting on 26 January 2022 that it had been meant for his daughter; Mr Hall's discussion of his ex-partner and a used condom; a comment that Miss Bratt looked nice followed by 'am I allowed to say that'; the display of dating-site images on Mr Hall's Facebook account while she assisted him; a video of his girlfriend Tanya in a skirt leaning forward and blowing a kiss; and the use of expletives including 'fuck' and 'wank' during a telephone call.

Taking the conduct as a whole, the tribunal found it was reasonable for Miss Bratt to experience it as creating an offensive environment, especially given her junior position, the contemporaneous WhatsApp messages, and the workplace culture reflected in the grievance responses. The tribunal noted that it was not finding sexual advances or grooming, but said that was not required for sexual harassment. It concluded that the complaint was well founded. The written reasons do not record any monetary award, because after judgment the parties agreed settlement terms and the tribunal stayed the claim for 40 days to allow those terms to take effect unless remedy was raised within that period.