Case 3200569/2022 · Employment Tribunal

KJ v British Council NOTICE OF CORRECTION Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 Under the provisions of — 2024

Case reference: 3200569/2022
Decision date: 5 July 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Shore Dated
Panel members: Ms P Alford, Mrs M Legg

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Respondent

British Council NOTICE OF CORRECTION Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 Under the provisions of

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant worked for the British Council in Morocco from 1 January 2011 until her employment ended on 22 November 2021. Her claims arose from allegations about a colleague, Tony Reilly, and from the respondent's handling of her complaints and grievance. The tribunal found that the claimant ultimately resigned and brought claims of constructive unfair dismissal, direct sex discrimination, harassment related to sex, harassment of a sexual nature, and victimisation.

The tribunal found that Mr Reilly harassed the claimant from October 2020 until April 2021. It also found that the respondent's SUC report and grievance handling blamed the claimant for Mr Reilly's conduct, gave weight to his mental health and her messages, and failed properly to recognise or uphold the harassment she had complained of. On those findings, the tribunal held that the SUC-related decisions amounted to direct discrimination because of sex, and that the claimant's dismissal was itself direct discrimination because of sex.

The tribunal upheld the claimant's harassment claims under section 26 EqA 2010. It found harassment related to sex in relation to Mr Reilly's conduct and the respondent's later handling of the complaint, and it also found harassment of a sexual nature on the same underlying facts. One SUC-related sub-allegation, framed as blaming the claimant for Mr Reilly's actions, failed as a harassment allegation because the tribunal treated that aspect as direct discrimination instead. The victimisation claim failed because the claimant had not shown facts from which the tribunal could infer that the detriments were because of the protected act.

The amended judgment recorded a 35% Polkey deduction for any unfair dismissal award and a 35% Chagger deduction for any discrimination award, but the text supplied does not record a final monetary award. The judgment also listed a further preliminary hearing to deal with remedy, so no final compensation figure is contained in this decision text.

Claims and outcomes

6 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Constructive dismissal	The claimant resigned on 22 November 2021 and the tribunal held that she was constructively unfairly dismissed under sections 94 and 95(1)(c) ERA 1996. The tribunal directed that no deduction be made for contributory conduct, and that a 35% Polkey reduction should be applied to any award for unfair dismissal.	Upheld	—	—
Sex discrimination	The tribunal upheld direct sex discrimination claims arising from the respondent's handling of the grievance process, including the SUC's findings that blamed the claimant for Mr Reilly's conduct, gave weight to his mental health and the claimant's messages, and failed properly to uphold her sexual-harassment complaint. The tribunal found those decisions were less favourable treatment because of sex.	Upheld	Sex	—
Sex discrimination	The tribunal held that the claimant's dismissal itself was direct discrimination because of sex under section 39(2)(c) EqA 2010.	Upheld	Sex	—
Harassment	The tribunal found harassment related to sex under section 26(1) EqA 2010 in relation to Mr Reilly's conduct from October 2020 to April 2021 and the respondent's later treatment of the complaint. Within the SUC-related allegations, one sub-allegation failed at 6.2.1, but 6.2.2 and 6.2.3 succeeded.	Upheld	Sex	—
Harassment	The tribunal also upheld the claimant's claim of harassment of a sexual nature under section 26(2) EqA 2010 on the same underlying conduct by Mr Reilly.

Legal tests applied

6 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.

Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

How we got this data

Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.

Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.