Traumatised Sexual Harassment Victim Receives Six-Figure Compensation

The mental scars left by sexual harassment and victimisation at work can derail even the most promising career. In a case on point, a highly qualified construction industry trainee who was targeted by her own mentor was awarded more than £350,000 in compensation by an Employment Tribunal…

Aug 17, 2023

Pexels mikael blomkvist 8961065 1024x683

The mental scars left by sexual harassment and victimisation at work can derail even the most promising career. In a case on point, a highly qualified construction industry trainee who was targeted by her own mentor was awarded more than £350,000 in compensation by an Employment Tribunal (ET).

After doing well at school and university, the woman was dismissed from her first job after making harassment allegations. She lodged ET complaints and, although the matter was settled at an early stage, the proceedings were the subject of a public judgment.

She was subsequently delighted to obtain an 18-month training contract with a major employer. However, she resigned 15 months into the contract after history repeated itself: she suffered sexual harassment at the hands of her male mentor, also being subjected to victimisation by him and others, including those whose task it was to resolve her complaints.

Attempts were made to influence the investigation of her complaints and a copy of the public judgment was circulated amongst her colleagues. Perhaps most woundingly, the mentor was not dismissed but remained employed until his resignation.

The impact on her mental health was profound. She was diagnosed with adjustment disorder, including anxiety and depressed mood. She made over 200 job applications over a period of almost two years, almost all of them unsuccessful. To make ends meet, she eventually took on a human resources role that was far removed from the career path she had set her heart on.

After she again launched ET proceedings, the employer conceded liability. It admitted that she had been subjected to 26 acts of sexual harassment and eight acts of victimisation, contrary to the Equality Act 2010. Various matters concerning the valuation of her claim remained in dispute, however.

Ruling on the matter, the ET found that, despite her strong academic record and ability, she would be prejudiced in the employment market for five years. She would have to disclose her mental health difficulties to prospective employers, who might also be deterred by the fact that her CV did not proceed in a straight line but indicated a change of tack that would require explanation.

Save in one instance, where she had unreasonably turned down a job offer, she had taken appropriate steps to mitigate her loss. She had demonstrated resourcefulness and resilience in the past and, with the support of her loving family, it was to be hoped that she would in time recover her desired career trajectory.

Amongst other awards made by the ET were £40,000 for injury to feelings, £10,000 for psychiatric injury and £5,000 in aggravated damages. Her past and future financial losses were valued at more than £130,000. After making allowance for the fact that she would receive all the money in a single tax year, thereby losing the benefit of her tax-free personal allowance, the ET’s total award came to £357,004.

Furlough Scheme Abuse Whistleblower Receives Substantial Compensation

Every right-thinking person would agree that workplace whistleblowers deserve not retaliation but praise. However, the opposite sadly happened in the case of a public-spirited factory worker who expressed deep ethical concern about his employer’s criminal abuse of the COVID-19 furlough scheme. The man, who had a vulnerable daughter at particular risk from COVID-19, complained to management that self-isolation rules were not being followed after one of his co-workers tested positive for the…

Supreme Court Delivers Blow to Trade Union in Delivery Riders Test Case

Are you an employee, a worker, or neither? The answer to that question could not be more important as it defines the rights you may or may not have. The Supreme Court tackled the issue in a case concerning food delivery riders, a trade union and collective bargaining rights. A trade union representing the riders made a formal request to the delivery company to be recognised for collective bargaining purposes. After the company refused, the union complained to the Central Arbitration Committee…

Workplace Banter May Be Fine, But Not If it Tips Over Into Harassment

A certain amount of foul-mouthed banter is only to be expected in a robust working environment. As an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling showed, however, employers who allow it to tip over into hostile and discriminatory abuse are likely to pay a high financial and reputational price. The case concerned a white worker, aged in his early 50s, who was employed by a tyre recycling company. He worked as part of a small team in which white people were in a minority. He said that a younger black…