Sex Discrimination, Harassment and Victimisation
The claimant was sexually harassed by Mr Sharma over a period of 3 months. She raised the matter with Mr Ahuja and alleged that Mr Ahuja said at their meeting that if she pursued the matter ‘maybe she would lose her job, visa and honour’. She then raised the matter in a telephone conversation with Lord Rami Ranger who became angry and insulting to her. The tribunal found that many of the associated allegations she made about the sexual harassment were not true and that she had exaggerated and distorted matters. They upheld her claims of victimisation against Mr Ahuja and of victimisation, harassment and discrimination against Lord Rami Ranger
The EAT allowed the appeals of Mr Ahuja and Lord Rami Ranger in part and found as follows:
(1) the ET’s finding that the allegations as a whole were made in good faith could not be reconciled with the finding that she had exaggerated and distorted matters and that the findings of victimisation therefore had to be reconsidered;
(2) the ET had wrongly relied on section 136 of the Equality Act 2010 in finding that Mr Ahuja had made the alleged comments in their meeting and this finding had to be reconsidered;
(3) the ET had also failed to properly consider Lord Rami Ranger’s submission that he had not victimised the claimant because it was the manner in which she had raised the allegations against Mr Sharma rather than the fact she had done so which had caused his conduct on the phone; but
(4) the ET’s findings that he had discriminated against her and harassed her by virtue of that conduct were not perverse and were adequately reasoned.
Judges:
His Honour Judge Shanks
Citations:
[2022] EAT 32
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment, Discrimination, Torts – Other
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.674551
