Ms H v Ministry of Defence — 2022

The claimant, a former RAF Corporal and Avionics Technician, was sexually assaulted by Cpl F while stationed at Souda Bay, Crete. The respondent disputed liability for the sexual harassment claim only on the basis that the assault was not in the course of employment. The tribunal found that it was in the course of employment, taking a broad approach under section 109 Equality Act 2010, including that the claimant was in Crete because of her posting, the matter was handled as a service matter, and Cpl F was dealt with through the military justice system.

The tribunal accepted that there were failings in the handling of the RAF Police investigation and that some aspects of the claimant's later treatment could have been handled better. It found, however, that those failings did not establish less favourable treatment because of sex or sexual orientation, or because the claimant had made a protected act. It also found that operational and staffing reasons, rather than the protected characteristics or protected acts, explained decisions about the claimant's AFCO transfer, gapping her post, and other posting issues.

The direct sex discrimination, direct sexual orientation discrimination, victimisation, and non-sexual harassment complaints were dismissed. The indirect sex discrimination complaints were also dismissed because the tribunal did not accept the pleaded PCPs as valid or established on the facts, and in respect of the Preferential Treatment Policy found no application to the claimant, no group disadvantage to women, and no individual disadvantage. The tribunal found it had jurisdiction over allegations broadly related to the Service Complaint, but not over excluded complaints concerning delay and maladministration in the Service Complaint process. Remedy for the upheld sexual harassment claim was adjourned.