A male museum worker who brought a claim against his employer for sex discrimination has lost his case, with the judge finding that he was the person treating men and women differently.
Jonathan McMurray worked for the Ulster Folk and Transport Museum as a part-time education assistant, alongside two other assistants at the same level. All reported to the same manager, Laura Hutchinson.
Soon after he joined the museum in 2019, there was an issue where some elderly men entered the museum while a school group was using a particular room for a workshop.
One of his assistant colleagues, Ms Cathcart, explained to the men that children were using the hall, but told the tribunal that McMurray had “inserted himself” between her and the men, and undermined her.
Discrimination claims
‘Back in your day’ could be discriminatory, rules judge
Waste worker who was offered a chair loses age discrimination claim
In a meeting with his manager the next day, McMurray said his colleague had done this because she had been irritated by a classroom tips document he had put together and this was because of his age and gender.
When he filed his ET1 tribunal claim form 16 months later, he expanded this account to claim that Cathcart had sworn at him and told him he was “doing the fucking bloke thing”, and that this was followed by “a brief rant on men – very angry and spiteful”.
He added: “I had been attacked with no warning by [Cathcart] who launched into a verbal tirade using abusive terms relating to my gender in the presence of public and school groups.”
His colleagues’ submissions to tribunal claimed no such rant took place, although Cathcart admitted that she muttered “you are a pain in the arse” under her breath. Cathcart also sent him a WhatsApp message soon after, apologising for being a “crab head”.
The tribunal found that this was the only potentially relevant remark to McMurray’s claim, and that there had been no reference to gender or abusive “tirade” as claimed.
It also heard that McMurray had told his consultant psychiatrist in 2020 that he did not like working with female colleagues, as he found them to be “manipulative”.
“If anyone had difficulties dealing with the opposite gender, it appears to have been the claimant,” the judgment said.
His manager’s testimonial echoed this, noting that his behaviour had been markedly different when he was talking to men rather than women.
Hutchinson said: “I observed this far more frequently with female staff. His conversations with men were very different – he asked questions, left space for them to speak and didn’t correct them. It appeared he was making a choice when speaking to female staff to lecture, inform, advise and educate.”
McMurray was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder in December 2020, 10 days after he left the role at the museum. He had not mentioned seeking diagnosis to his employer until 3 March 2020.
He took a period of annual and paternity leave at the beginning of 2020, and after he returned further difficulties arose. The tribunal heard that he “continued to give lectures to colleagues, talk over colleagues and generally engage in monologues which he found interesting but the recipients did not”.
A probation review led to McMurray’s probation period being extended, pointing out some of the communication issues he was undergoing with teammates. He resigned in October 2020. It was also agreed in light of a period of shielding during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The tribunal ruled that the sex discrimination claim was out of time by 16 months, with no evidence put forward to explain the delay. Even if it had been in time, however, there were no grounds for sex discrimination.
Responding to his disability discrimination claim, the tribunal accepted that McMurray had suffered from ASD during his employment at the museum. However, the employer had “no constructive knowledge” of this and so could not make reasonable adjustments – so this claim also failed.
A further claim of constructive unfair dismissal was thrown out because McMurray claimed his probation extension had been a breach of contract, but the tribunal found that this was “part of the claimant’s employment”.
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
HR business partner opportunities on Personnel Today
Browse more HR business partner jobs
