In person For the v Respondent — 2025

The Claimant worked for the First Respondent from 5 March 2018 and also took additional sessional work on Ward E from December 2020. In July 2021, four younger female colleagues complained of sexual comments, messaging, touching and social media contact. After being told of the complaints on 13 July 2021, the Claimant left work, was treated as absent through sickness, was later suspended on full pay pending investigation, and resigned on 17 November 2021 after being told the matter would proceed to a disciplinary hearing.

On the direct sex discrimination complaint, the tribunal accepted the Second Respondent's evidence that she did not try to kiss the Claimant. It rejected the Claimant's case that she made false accusations or persuaded others to do so. The tribunal held that the decision of the disciplinary panel on 5 January 2022 would have been the same for a hypothetical comparator in materially similar circumstances, and that the Claimant had not shown that the treatment was because of sex.

On race discrimination, the tribunal found that each comparator relied on by the Claimant was in materially different circumstances. It concluded that Comparator 1 involved historic allegations, one complainant and remorse; Comparator 2 involved an allegation that was not substantiated; Comparator 3 was a complaint raised by the Claimant on behalf of Colleague B and resolved informally; Colleague J was absent and then resigned; and Colleagues L and N involved different conduct without unwanted physical touching. The tribunal accepted the Respondent's explanations for the different outcomes and found that race played no part in the decision making.

The harassment claim failed because the tribunal found there was no attempt by the Second Respondent to kiss the Claimant, no false accusations, and no persuasion of others to complain. The victimisation claim also failed: the tribunal accepted that the Claimant's report in the car park to ZJ about Comparator 3 and Colleague B was a protected act under s.27 Equality Act 2010, but found no evidence that the investigation or disciplinary panel knew about it or were influenced by it.

The constructive dismissal claim failed because the tribunal found no repudiatory breach. It held that the Claimant left work of his own volition on 13 July 2021, that the suspension and investigation were dealt with under policy, and that the claim did not fail because the Respondent had acted in breach of contract. The tribunal found that the Claimant resigned because he realised his job was at risk, had begun looking for other work, and resigned after being told the disciplinary process would continue. No remedy was awarded.