Charlotte Tilley made claims of wrongful constructive dismissal, sex discrimination and victimisation, and deduction of wages. She resigned from her workplace after a disciplinary investigation was launched into colleagues’ claims that she had made inappropriate comments about her sex life at work.
Tilley told the tribunal that she had been treated differently to how a man would have been treated in the same position. She claimed that her comments were made to deter colleagues from asking intrusive questions about her sex life.
Employers have a duty to investigate sexual conversations in the workplace, explained Kash Dosanjh, senior associate at law firm Wright Hassall.
Speaking to HR magazine, Dosanjh said: "Employers have a duty to ensure that there are measures in place to prevent harassment at work. This can extend to conversations at work of a sexual nature, as this has the ability to cause offence to other colleagues.
"If there have been complaints of inappropriate sexual conversations in the workplace, employers need to carry out a thorough investigation into the complaints.”
Read more: Office sex witness was unfairly dismissed, tribunal finds
Tilley was employed as a recruitment consultant at Gravitas Recruitment Group from July 2022 to March 2023.
At the work Christmas party, the tribunal heard that she kissed another woman in front of colleagues. She was then reportedly involved in a conversation with two colleagues about her experience dating women.
The tribunal also heard that Tilley entered a relationship with another employee. The two kept it quiet until a colleague spotted them together. Tilley told the tribunal that colleagues asked her questions like: “What is he like in bed?”, which she said she didn’t want to discuss.
When the questioning continued for five minutes, however, Tilley responded: “What do you think the gold stars are for?”, referencing gold star stickers that decorated her computer. She told the tribunal that she said this to make her colleagues stop asking unwanted questions, and to make them uncomfortable.
Tilley's colleague told the tribunal that Tilley shared information of her own accord, and that she (Tilley) had, on a separate occasion, told her that the number of gold stars on her computer represented the number of times that their colleague made her “squirt” during sex.
Colleagues reported these incidents to team manager, who met with Tilley and the associate director, to discuss her behaviour. Both senior staff told Tilley that complaints had been made about her behaviour. They asked if she made the squirt comment, which she confirmed.
Tilley also said that she thought the comment about the gold stars was necessary as she was being “harassed” about her relationship and she wanted to make her colleagues uncomfortable.
The senior staffers explained that comments and language of that nature were not appropriate or professional. The tribunal heard that she was told to “think things in her head and try not to say things out loud that would add fuel to the fire”.
Following the meeting, the tribunal report described that Tilley’s relationship with senior staff broke down. Tilley said that she did not trust her colleagues and wanted to move teams. Tilley told the tribunal that she had raised sexual harassment complaints with a director, due to her colleagues’ questioning of her relationship and sex life. The director disputed this.
Other complaints were made about Tilley, including that she had inappropriate images of naked male torsos as her screensaver on her work laptop. Colleagues also alleged she showed them a video on her phone of her having sex with an ex-boyfriend.
Tilley was invited to a disciplinary meeting by Emma Beckett, a junior HR business partner, the tribunal report revealed. Beckett explained that the meeting had been called because of complaints made about unacceptable sexual comments, and that Tilley had viewed inappropriate imagery during work hours and showed colleagues an inappropriate video. Beckett added that such behaviour could lead to dismissal if the complaints were substantiated.
The night before the meeting was due to take place, Tilley texted the senior managers to say that she was “upset, anxious and stressed by the situation”. She emailed Beckett an official grievance that colleagues had gossiped about her relationship, and reported feeling humiliated.
Tilley was signed off sick for a month until HR associate director, Victoria Morgan, emailed her to say they needed to progress matters and would correspond regarding her grievance and the disciplinary process as part of one investigatory process.
A day after she received the email, Morgan resigned. Morgan, however, emailed Tilley to say that she would continue with the investigation, given the nature of the allegations, which concluded that Tilley had been the one to overstep the mark. No formal report was written up nor an outcome letter sent to Tilley. She was also not invited to an exit interview.
Morgan told the tribunal that this was because Tilley was off sick and had made clear via email that she would not attend any meetings due to anxiety and stress.
Read more: Boss harassed employee he invited on holiday and to dinner, tribunal rules
The company had a commission policy that stated when employees would be entitled to commission payments. This excluded when they have given notice to terminate employment, unless at the management’s discretion. Morgan decided to terminate Tilley’s commissions after she resigned.
The tribunal ruled that Tilley readily participated in sexual conversations, and used explicit language. “She had a high tolerance of matters of a sexual nature,” the report stated.
In an article in HR magazine dated February 2023, Jo Moseley, employment lawyer at Irwin Mitchell, explained that harassment and discrimination rulings are based on the impact on employees.
Moseley told HR magazine: "The tribunal won't normally trouble itself about the reasons why someone made discriminatory remarks and will focus instead on the impact those words had on the person offended by them. And, an employer will only be able to defend a claim if it can show that it took all reasonable steps to prevent harassment or discrimination.
"In practice, this requires a workplace policy, regular training and prompt action taken against anyone who oversteps the mark."
The tribunal ruled that the conversations Tilley had about her sex life were not unwanted, and did not have the purpose or effect of harassing her. It also ruled that none of the allegations were harassment, and the company did not wrongfully or constructively dismiss her, as the company was willing to listen to any concerns she had, and they did not breach her trust.
