Member L M Millar Tribunal Member A McMillan Miss S Hancock v STV Group plc — 2019

The claimant brought claims of direct sex discrimination, harassment and victimisation under the Equality Act 2010 against STV Group Plc; the claim against Mr Ross was withdrawn at the hearing. The tribunal held that the CV Incident was out of time and refused to extend time for it, but extended time for Mr Semple's promotion and the Date Incident under the section 123 EqA just and equitable discretion. It noted that the claimant had received legal advice before presenting her claim and that her explanation for not raising the CV Incident earlier was unconvincing.

On the merits, the tribunal found Mr Semple's promotion in January 2018 was based on genuine business reasons and that the claimant and Mr Semple were in materially different situations. It accepted that Mr Ross's questioning at the May Meeting was excessive and that the claimant was visibly upset, but held that this was because of the client issues and the strained working relationship, not because of sex. It also held that the handling of the claimant's clients during her absence and the July Meeting were business decisions or responses to the unresolved grievance, not sex-based treatment. The internal grievance process had upheld bullying/harassment about the May Meeting and a breach of privacy in the Telephone Incident, but the tribunal's own findings did not support a statutory discrimination claim.

In the harassment claim, the tribunal considered the discussions about dating websites and the Date Incident but found no unwanted conduct related to sex and no intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. In the victimisation claim, it treated the protected act as the bringing of proceedings and considered the alleged December 2018 detriments: redistribution of Mr Ross's clients, the increase of the claimant's target by £25,000, and contact with client A and client C. It found no detriment in the client allocation or contact with clients, and although it accepted the target increase could reasonably be seen as a disadvantage, it found the real reason was business planning rather than the protected act. The tribunal therefore dismissed all claims and made no award.