Automated Summary
Key Facts
The employment tribunal ruled in favor of Ms. Leigh Best (Claimant) against Embark on Raw Ltd. (Respondent). Key findings include: (1) Unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996 for making protected disclosures about health and safety during the 2020 pandemic. (2) Harassment under the Equality Act 2010 related to age and sex, including derogatory remarks about the menopause. (3) Unlawful detriment due to procedural failures in disciplinary actions. (4) Victimization for raising harassment allegations. The case number is 3202006/2020, and a remedy hearing is scheduled for 31 January 2022 to determine compensation.
Issues
- The Tribunal concluded that the Claimant was harassed under section 26 Equality Act 2010 due to unwanted conduct related to her protected characteristics of age and sex, including derogatory comments about her menopause and age. The harassment was found to violate her dignity and create a degrading work environment.
- The Claimant's unlawful detriment claim under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded. The Tribunal concluded the Respondent's acts (e.g., lack of disciplinary warnings, inadequate notice for appeal) were done on the ground of her protected disclosures, causing significant procedural and personal harm.
- The Tribunal found the Claimant's dismissal under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 was automatically unfair because it was motivated by her protected disclosures (whistleblowing) about health and safety violations during the pandemic.
- The Tribunal determined that the Claimant was victimised under section 27 Equality Act 2010 after making a protected act (alleging harassment). The Respondent's adverse treatment, including a verbal warning and dismissal, was directly linked to this protected act.
Holdings
- The victimisation claim under section 27 Equality Act 2010 succeeds as the Claimant was treated less favourably after making a protected act (alleging harassment). This led to her verbal warning and subsequent dismissal.
- The harassment claim under section 26 Equality Act 2010 succeeds, related to the Claimant's protected characteristics of age and sex. The Tribunal found that Mr Fletcher's conduct, including asking about her menopause and making age-related comments, violated her dignity and created a degrading work environment.
- The claim under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (unlawful detriment) succeeds because the Claimant was subjected to detriment by the Respondent for making protected disclosures about health and safety concerns.
- The complaint of unfair dismissal succeeds as the Claimant was dismissed for the automatically unfair reason of making qualifying protected disclosures during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Legal Principles
- The Tribunal applied the balance of probabilities standard to assess whether the Claimant's allegations of harassment, victimisation, and protected disclosures were proven, concluding they were substantiated on this basis.
- The Tribunal determined that the Claimant met the burden of proof for harassment and victimisation under the Equality Act 2010 and for protected disclosures under the Employment Rights Act 1996, based on evidence and witness testimony.
Cited Statute
- Equality Act 2010
- Employment Rights Act 1996
Judge Name
- M L Wood
- R Blanco
- B Elgot
Passage Text
- The complaint of unfair dismissal SUCCEEDS. The Claimant was dismissed under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 (the 1996 Act) for the automatically unfair reason that she made qualifying protected disclosures.
- The addition of the dismissal itself is permissible under section 27 and we are satisfied that part of the reason for the Respondent's decision to dismiss the Claimant is that she made a significant allegation of sexism and ageism against Mr David Fletcher which the Respondent took very seriously.
- These two one-off acts of harassment of a relatively minor nature are relevant to the Claimant's protected characteristics of age and sex and her harassment claims succeed.