Antiques dealer John Wellington has been ordered to pay his former employee, Audrey Pereira, £56,022.34 after asking her why she wanted to work, and other personal questions, according to a tribunal decision published on Monday (31 March).
Employment judge Kate Annand said that Wellington's question was "inherently sexist", and made Pereira feel the need to justify why she wanted to work.
Annand added that the question asked was based on an "outdated idea" of "men being the main breadwinners".
Wellington had also asked Pereira personal questions to do with her faith and her husband, the tribunal heard.
HR leaders and employers should remember that sexual harassment is not always sexual in nature, said Stephen Cooper, managing director of Stop Sexual Misconduct, an organisation working to eradicate workplace sexual harassment.
He told HR magazine: “A consistent pattern of gender-based harassment can also be illegal. The days of making remarks like 'a woman’s place is in the kitchen, not the boardroom' are long gone.”
Read more: GMB staff to complain to EHRC about institutional sexism
Cooper also stated that while senior leadership's actions to eradicate sexist behaviour at work are crucial, "everyday workplace culture also plays a crucial role. Overlooking seemingly minor behaviours can contribute to a toxic environment over time.”
Cooper recommended that HR leaders address sexist jokes and comments, ensure equal participation in meetings and be mindful of workplace language.
If employees are unsure of whether a remark is sexist or discriminatory, they should ask themselves: ‘Would I say this to a man?,’ Ruby Norman-Curran, co-president of the London branch of gender equality organisation, SheSays, added.
Norman-Curran told HR magazine: “That question is a good litmus test that can be used in the workplace to avoid accidentally falling into outdated viewpoints. And 'Does it lack nuance?' It’s not always applicable, but it can help if you’re struggling with what is and is not appropriate to say.”
Read more: UK ranks fifth globally for progress on gender equality
Training is key to preventing sexist remarks being made in the workplace, according to Sharon Peake, founder of gender equality consultancy, Shape Talent.
Peake told HR magazine: “Awareness-raising training around bias and discrimination, as well as bystander training, can ensure employees at all levels are not only aware of how to create psychologically safe and inclusive work environments but also have tips to intervene if they witness sexism occurring in the workplace.
“In our training we advocate for the 'Call in, call on, call out' model of dealing with microaggressions and sexism: ‘call in’ the person to help them understand the impact of their actions, ‘call on’ someone else to lend support, ‘call out’ the inappropriate behaviour.”
Unconscious bias leads to women facing barriers into ‘male-centric’ roles, Geeta Nargund, chair of gender parity consultancy The Pipeline, noted.
Speaking to HR magazine, Nargund said: “Sadly, unconscious bias is far more common than we may like to believe, and disappointingly these biases often lead to women being systemically overlooked. This can take many different forms but frequently means management teams become 'talent blockers', as they don't see women fitting the 'traditional' male-centric leadership image, or fail to consider them as being a key part of a team.
“HR teams must be aware of this and reiterate the importance of seeing a woman's potential beyond her current role to business leaders, supporting both employer and employee to nurture a more inclusive culture.”
Employment judge Kata Annand stated that Wellington’s questions amounted to “unwanted conduct” and that it was unlikely he would have asked a male employee the same questions.
Pereira also won her breach of contract claim, after Wellington failed to pay Pereira an agreed amount if she reached her sales target.
Pereira was employed with the understanding that she would be paid by way of PAYE, that she would be paid holiday pay, and would be enrolled in a pension. The tribunal found that this was not the case and that Wellington’s reasons for not doing so were not credible.
