A woman who was asked why she wanted to work has partially won her employment tribunal case after a judge ruled that the query was based on the ‘outdated idea’ that men were the ‘main breadwinners’.
Employment Judge Kate Annand said an employer would “not even have thought” to ask a male employee the same question, she concluded, as she ruled a sales assistant had been sexually harassed.
Ms Pereira was awarded £56,000 in compensation for sex harassment, unpaid wages, wrongful dismissal, and two complaints of victimisation for being put on garden leave and not being reinstated.
She lost her claims for unfair dismissal, race discrimination and sex discrimination.
Pereira, a sales assistant, had been working for antiques and jewellery specialist Wellington Antiques in Windsor.
Judge Annand said John Wellington’s questions were “inherently sexist” as they made Ms Pereira feel she needed to “justify her need and desire to work”.
Tribunal claims
Latest employment tribunal news
Police sergeant’s ‘scattergun’ allegations dismissed by tribunal
Engineer awarded £25k after employer ‘trespassed’ his home
Nurse left out of tea round wins constructive dismissal claim
She said: “The tribunal concluded that this did amount to ‘unwanted conduct’ in that [Ms Pereira] found the questions to be intrusive and inappropriate.”
In her judgment, the tribunal found it was “unlikely” Mr Wellington would have asked a male who was seeking a role “why they needed to work, why they needed to earn money, or questions about their wife”.
“The tribunal found that these questions were related to sex in that they were motivated by [Ms Pereira’s] sex, and [Mr Wellington] would not even have thought to ask these questions of a male who wanted to work in the Antiques store.”
She said the questions “created a degrading environment” and “violated her dignity”.
The Reading tribunal heard that Ms Pereira, of South Asian heritage, began working at Wellington Antiques in Windsor in October 2021 but didn’t discuss employment terms until December. In November, she had discussed bank details with Mr Wellington during which, she claimed, he asked her “personal and intrusive” questions. This included questions about her faith and her husband.
She was only paid “sporadically” throughout her employment and alleged that she was denied a £2,000 commission promised by Mr Wellington if she hit her sales targets, the tribunal heard.
During a “heated” discussion in July, Ms Pereira raised the issue of the unpaid bonus.
Mr Wellington accused her of claiming other people’s sales and shouted that she could leave if she did not want the job “on his terms”.
In January 2023, she was put on paid gardening leave, but by the beginning of March, she believed she had been effectively dismissed.
Martin Williams, partner and head of employment at Mayo Wynne Baxter said the case provided a prime example of why the employment relationship should be a fair one.
“There is an imbalance of power between employer and employee that should not be exploited by the former,” he said.
“In this case, comments were made that significantly undermined the employee’s reason for seeking employment. Neither should an employee be subject to a delay in payment of salary. Even if the employer only views the employment as transactional then, at the very least, complete the transaction.
“All in all, if anyone wants to know how not to go about being a decent employer, then follow the lead of the respondent in this case.”
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
Latest HR job opportunities on Personnel Today
Browse more human resources jobs
