uk : female estate agent has been found guilty of sex discrimination after she offered a sex act is to PERFORM A male colleague if he banked £ 180,000 in income.
Sarah Thompson, 51, made the remark to the Senior Financial Consultant Paul Elworthy, 45, at a boozy Christmas do.
Judges at an Employment Tribunal in London unanimously during the South ruled that Mr Elworthy had been subjected to direct sex discrimination by Ms. Thompson and should be compensated.
They said that they had “no hésitation in Finding That was the comment made Because of the claimant’s gender.”
“We find That Ms. Thompson would not have made an equivalent comment to a woman,” the Judges added.
Mr Elworthy’m told the hearing in south London: “I Attendee a Senior Consultants’ Reward for lunch.
“Sarah Thompson stated at that meeting she’d Provide me with a blow job if I hit banked £ 180,000 income.
“This was said in the presence of a number of people. It made me feel very uncomfortable. I did not report it as she was my line manager. I would not get a fair hearing.”
Ms. Thompson, who works at Your Move’s regional HQ in Chessington, South London, had denied the Claims.
When asked by her firm’s HR department in 2015 if she had made the comment she said: “Absolutely not, do you really think I would ever say that? He might have wanted me too.”
The Tribunal heard evidence from Members of staff who were at the Christmas lunch Which contradicted what Ms Thomson said.
One colleague, Giles Barrett, recalled the remark being made and the reference to £ 180,000.
When he heard Ms. Thompson make the comment he said “does that count for everyone?” and she replied, “Well, you’re married” – this was have followed by laughter.
The panel said that although the comments amounted to sex discrimination they were not harassment.
As well as striking out the Claim That They also found against Mr Elworthy’s Claim of unfair constructive dismissal.
Got their Judgment, the Tribunal ruled: “We have found That Ms. Thompson’s Comment The claimant left feeling ‘a bit uncomfortable’ and ‘not great’.
“It did not meet the bar for harassment but we find the effect of HIM That was nevertheless a detriment.
“It was a highly sexualised comment and we have no hésitation in Finding That was the comment made Because of the claimant’s gender.”
They added: “We find That Ms. Thompson would not have made an equivalent comment to a woman.
“We That is why I find the comment was less favourable treatment Because of Sex and the Sex Discrimination Claim for Direct Succeeds.
Mr Elworthy had also Claimed That he was constructively dismissed unfairly as he was ‘forced’ to clean toilets – but Judges threw out this Claim.
At the tribunal accepted Mr Elworthy That he had never cleaned and That he had never been disciplined or reprimanded for failing to carry out cleaning duties in the seven-year period he worked at the firm.
A further hearing will DETERMINE the Amount of damages.