After being asked by an employer why she wanted to be employed, a woman has won a case at the employment tribunal. The judge found that the question was based on ‘the outdated idea’ that women were the “main breadwinners”.
Kate Annand, a judge in the Employment Court, said that an employer “wouldn’t even have thought” of asking a male employee a similar question. She made this conclusion after ruling a female sales assistant sexually harassed.
Ms Pereira received PS56,000 as compensation for sexual harassment, unpaid wages and wrongful dismissal. She also made two complaints about victimisation because she was put on gardening leave and then not reinstated.
She lost her claim for unfair dismissal and race discrimination.
Pereira was a sales assistant at Wellington Antiques, an antiques and jewelry specialist in Windsor.
Judge Annand said John Wellington’s questions were “inherently sexist” as they made Ms Pereira “feel she had to justify her need and desire to be employed”.
She said: “The Tribunal concluded that this amounted to ‘unwanted Conduct’ as [Ms Pereira] considered the questions to intrusive, and inappropriate.”
In its judgement the tribunal found that it was “unlikely”, Mr Wellington, to have asked a man who was looking for a job “why they had to work, earn money or ask questions about their spouse”.
The tribunal determined that the questions asked were related to sexuality in that [Ms Pereira] was motivated by her sex. [Mr Wellington] wouldn’t have even thought of asking these questions to a male candidate who wanted to work at an Antiques store.”
She claimed that the questions had “created an environment degrading” and “violated [her] dignity”.
The Reading tribunal heard Ms Pereira of South Asian descent began working at Wellington Antiques Windsor in October 2021, but did not discuss employment terms until the end of December. She claimed that in November she discussed her bank account with Mr Wellington, during which he asked “personal and intrusive questions”. These included questions about her religion and husband.
The tribunal heard that she only received payments “sporadically” during her employment, and claimed she was not paid the PS2,000 in commissions promised by Mr Wellington should she meet her sales targets.
Ms Pereira brought up the issue of unpaid bonuses during a “heated discussion” in July.
Mr Wellington shouted at her that she was claiming sales of other people and she could leave the job if she didn’t want it “on his terms”.
She was placed on paid gardening leave in January 2023. However, by the end of March she thought she had been dismissed.
Martin Williams, partner at Mayo Wynne Baxter and head of employment said that the case was a good example of how the employment relationship must be fair.
He said that the employer should not exploit this power imbalance between them and their employees.
“In this instance, comments were made which significantly undermined the reason why the employee sought employment. A delay in salary payment is also unacceptable. Even if an employer views employment only as a transaction, they should at least complete the transaction.
“All in All, if you want to learn how to not be a decent employee, follow the example of the respondent.”
Subscribe to our weekly HR news and guidance
Every Wednesday, receive the Personnel Today Direct newsletter.
Personnel Today has the latest HR job openings.
Browse Human Resources Jobs
