Employment Law Case Update: Discrimination Based on Sex

Ensuring a non-discriminatory workplace is one of the fundamentals of Employment Law, and when this is not provided the results can easily end up in tribunal.  Our Employment Law team today review the case of Ms Eleanor Stevenson v Eden Beck Ltd and how an employer made a catalogue of errors.

Ms Stevenson worked for the company as a personal assistant and office manager from June 2016 until her resignation in June 2019. She was one of three female members of staff, and the Employment Tribunal (ET) heard that male staff members were given more frequent appraisals, and received promotions and pay rises more often than their female colleagues. 

In February 2017, the female employees, including Ms Stevenson, submitted a collective complaint claiming they were “not treated as equals to the men”. They listed several examples, including being expected to answer the phones and clean the kitchen, and the inappropriate language used by the men in the office. They also complained that only men were invited on an employee trip to Las Vegas, which was paid for by Stuart Mayall, the director of the company. Mr Mayall said female employees did not go because he did not want any “hanky panky” between them and the male staff.

Mr Mayall acknowledged the women’s complaint but did nothing in response.

The ET also heard examples of sexist and aggressive behaviour directed at Ms Stevenson. Some of her male co-workers made offensive comments about her weight and appearance in an office Whatsapp group and referred to her as “Elle at fat club”. When Mr Mayall’s son, who also worked for the company, brought his puppy into the office, Ms Stevenson was instructed to clean up the puppy’s faeces despite cleaning not being one of her duties.

In December 2018, Ms Stevenson was assaulted when walking home from the company Christmas party. She sustained several injuries to her face and head and subsequently went on sick leave. In March 2019, she was diagnosed with PTSD, reporting that she was having flashbacks and nightmares and did not like to go out as she was afraid of people and always felt like she might be attacked. It was therefore difficult for her to attend work and she was effectively absent until early May 2019.

In March 2019, while on sick leave, Ms Stevenson was forwarded an email between Mr Mayall and an advisor in which they discuss Mr Mayall’s plans to make Ms Stevenson redundant. This came as a shock to Ms Stevenson as she had not had any previous discussions about redundancy. She was distressed that rather than offering her support, Mr Mayall had instead decided to make her redundant.

Ms Stevenson was then invited to a disciplinary hearing related to, among other things, her “unexplained absence” from 5 May 2019. This was the last straw for Ms Stevenson and she resigned in June 2019. She then filed a claim against the company for constructive unfair dismissal, discrimination based on sex, and discrimination based on disability.

The ET found Ms Stevenson’s claim for sex based discrimination was well founded. It rejected the company’s claim that the male employees’ behaviour was just “horseplay” and “banter,” but rather the company was “allowing its male employees to take advantage of the few female employees”. The ET said it was “clear that the male members of staff were treated more favourably when compared with the female members of staff” in that the women were not given the same opportunities for training, promotion, and pay rises.

Regarding her claim for disability discrimination, the ET concluded that Ms Stevenson suffered from PTSD and was disabled under the Equality Act 2010. Rather than offer her support, Mr Mayall invoked the disciplinary process and attempted to make Ms Stevenson redundant, causing her further stress and anxiety. The ET found that this was not a proportionate response by the company in light of Ms Stevenson’s exemplary record as a loyal employee and the fact that she had continued to send in fit notes. Her claim for disability discrimination was therefore well founded.

Ms Stevenson’s claim for constructive unfair dismissal was also well founded. A remedy hearing was scheduled for a later date.

Employers have a responsibility to foster a safe and respectful work environment and to prevent discriminatory “banter” and harassment. Employers should also ensure all employees are given the equal opportunity to advance within the business, regardless of gender or any other protected characteristic.

Employers should also be mindful that employees who are off sick for a prolonged period of time may have a disability and should therefore be offered support and compassion. While it may be frustrating to have an employee off sick for long periods of time, it is important that proper procedures are followed, and a reasonable effort is made to help the employee get back to work.

If you have any questions regarding this article, you can call our Employment team today on 023 8071 7717 or email employment@warnergoodman.co.uk.

This was previously part of our weekly Employment Law Newsletter. If you would like to subscribe, please email us at events@warnergoodman.co.uk or just fill in our subscription form.

ENDS

This is for information purposes only and is no substitute for, and should not be interpreted as, legal advice.  All content was correct at the time of publishing and we cannot be held responsible for any changes that may invalidate this article.