Case 3315945/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mr M Blackburn, friend For the v Respondent — 2021

Case reference: 3315945/2019
Decision date: 25 July 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge George Members
Panel members: Mrs J Hancock, Ms K Turquoise

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Mr M Blackburn, friend For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mr T King worked as a Customer Assistant from 18 November 2017 until dismissal effective 2 March 2019. The central incident occurred on 19 December 2018 when line manager JF questioned him about additional shifts and then, in a staff search room, put her hand out, placed her foot against the door, used her shoulder to block the doorway, and grabbed his arm as he tried to leave. The tribunal rejected the allegation that her initial accusation that he was inflexible was aggressive or sex-related, but found the physical blocking and grabbing to be unwanted conduct related to sex because her mindset was partly that he was a big man and would not be intimidated by her as a smaller woman.

After the incident, managers JOH and LM did not treat the claimant's complaint seriously or reasonably investigate it. The tribunal found that their response was influenced by assumptions about JF being heavily pregnant and the claimant's size and sex, and that this amounted to direct sex discrimination. It held, however, that the failure to investigate did not itself amount to harassment because the claimant had said he wanted an informal resolution.

The tribunal also found that the dismissal on 2 March 2019 was sex-related harassment and, alternatively, direct sex discrimination. LM had rejected the claimant's explanation that PTSD and the December incident meant he could not keep in touch, failed to apply the sickness absence policy, and dismissed him for alleged unauthorised absence and failure to keep in contact. The tribunal held that his reasoning was influenced by assumptions that a big man would not be intimidated by a heavily pregnant woman, and that the respondent had not shown a non-discriminatory explanation. Residual sex discrimination and sex-related harassment allegations were dismissed, and the breach of contract claim failed because the tribunal found no repudiatory breach or gross misconduct. No remedy was determined in this judgment; notice pay and loss issues were left for a later hearing.

Claims and outcomes

6 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Harassment	19 December 2018 staff-search-room incident: the tribunal upheld the allegations that JF blocked the doorway, used her shoulder to stop the claimant leaving, and grabbed and held his arm; the separate allegation that she accused him of being inflexible in an aggressive tone was not made out.	Upheld	Sex	—
Sex discrimination	The tribunal held that the respondent did not reasonably investigate JF's conduct and the claimant's allegations after the 19 December 2018 incident, and found that the lack of action was influenced by assumptions about the claimant's sex and JF's pregnancy; it treated this as direct sex discrimination, not harassment.	Upheld	Sex	—
Harassment	The dismissal with effect from 2 March 2019 was found to be harassment related to sex.	Upheld	Sex	—
Sex discrimination	In the alternative, the dismissal on 2 March 2019 was found to be direct sex discrimination.	Upheld	Sex	—
Other	Residual allegations of direct sex discrimination and sex-related harassment were dismissed, including the accusation that the claimant was inflexible and the later disciplinary allegations about failing to comply with a management request and leaving work without authorisation.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Breach of contract

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.