Miss A v And Targus Europe Limited — 2017

The claimant worked for Targus Europe Limited from 13 November 2017 to 20 December 2017. She brought claims of direct race, age and sex discrimination, race-, age- and sex-related harassment, and victimisation. The tribunal had to clarify the Scott Schedule at the start of the hearing because the claims had not been properly narrowed before the full merits hearing.

On the discrimination and harassment complaints, the tribunal rejected the claimant’s case that the challenged treatment was because she was black, under 31, or female. It found that delays or limitations in relation to a mobile phone, home working, access to Concur, role clarity, KPI and commission issues, training, comments, blocked calls, bid requests, and internal team disputes were explained by the short duration of the employment, the office-based nature of the role, and the gradual development of a newly created position. Where comments were relied on, including the alleged "organ grinder" remark and an alleged mocking comment on 19 December 2017, the tribunal found no evidence that they were related to race, age or sex.

The tribunal also considered the Christmas party incident. It found that the allegation that Mr B sexually assaulted the claimant was not proved on the balance of probabilities. It also rejected the later allegation, first raised in evidence, that she had been "set up" by Mr Milo and Mrs Pringle. The tribunal found that the respondent had taken reasonable steps to prevent inappropriate behaviour, including equality and harassment policies, induction training, handbook acknowledgements and a reminder email before the party, and said that even if the alleged sexual misconduct had occurred, the respondent would not have been liable under section 109(4) Equality Act 2010.

On victimisation, the tribunal accepted that the claimant’s complaint of sexual assault on 10 December 2017 was a protected act, but found that her dismissal was not connected to that complaint. It accepted the respondent’s explanation that the dismissal followed the claimant’s written statement that she was secretly recording communications with colleagues, and held that this was a plausible non-discriminatory reason. All claims were dismissed and no remedy was awarded.