Employment Tribunal reporting - the facts behind the headlines

Posted: 15/08/2024

Cases involving employment law frequently make the news, and barely a week goes by without The Times publishing a story about some form of employment tribunal claim, often involving an element of discrimination or harassment. Usually, the story has a headline that is invariably described in the comments section as ‘clickbait’. So, how accurate are the headlines? Below we investigate a sample selection from The Times over recent months. 

‘Breaking wind on colleague was age discrimination, judge rules’

A manager for Birmingham City Council, in his fifties, found it ‘amusing’ to break wind on a younger colleague while he was eating his lunch. His colleague resigned and claimed constructive dismissal and age discrimination.

The Employment Tribunal (ET) found that he had been unfairly dismissed and suffered age discrimination and age-related harassment (although the discrimination claims were out of time). However, what the headline omits is the fact that the claimant (who was granted anonymity by the tribunal) had raised other complaints about his older colleague’s behaviour and evidence showed that he harboured animosity towards younger colleagues who he feared would take his job. The employment judge ruled that the older colleague had wanted to ‘take [the younger man] down a peg or two, to show him who was boss and to curb his ambitions because he considered him a ‘baby’ or a ‘pup’’.

It perhaps goes without saying that, had the manager broken wind over all his colleagues, not only those who were younger/more junior, this would not have been an act of discrimination, although certainly a disciplinary offence!

‘Calling women pretty at work is sex discrimination, rules judge’

Ms Emma Nunn, reported The Times, was discriminated against by her employer, G & MJ Crouch & Son, when she was asked, via WhatsApp, to attend a meeting with a client because they like ‘pretty women’. 

When Ms Nunn queried whether this was the only reason for her to attend the meeting and stated  that, if so, she would not attend, her employer replied: “Ok, babes.” She resigned and brought claims for constructive unfair dismissal, direct sex discrimination, sexual harassment, harassment related to sex and whistleblowing detriment. 

The ET found that neither the ‘pretty women’ comment, nor an equivalent comment, would be made to or about a male colleague’s physical attractiveness as a reason for being invited to a work meeting. It found that the comment was patronising and unwanted, and was made because of Ms Nunn’s sex. This  amounted to direct sex discrimination and she was successful in relation to this claim only. Her other claims were dismissed. In this case, then, the headline, while attention-grabbing, was in fact an accurate report of the tribunal’s decision.

‘Teacher sacked for sleeping at desk wins unfair dismissal case’

Jason Smith, a teacher, developed mental health difficulties as a result of a relationship breakdown which led to him taking long periods of absence. He was dismissed due to a combination of his attendance record and behavioural matters caused by his mental health (such as failing to report on time when he was going to be late or absent, mood swings, and a few occasions of brief sleeping while at work). 

The school obtained three occupational health reports and made a certain number of reasonable adjustments to accommodate him. Mr Smith was diagnosed by a psychiatrist as having an adjustment disorder with depressive features and was invited to attend various formal capability meetings. He was unable to attend these meetings due to work-related stress and mental health issues. The school’s head of HR went ahead with the meetings in his absence and subsequently dismissed him. 

The ET concluded that Mr Smith was disabled and found that the reasons for his dismissal were almost entirely because of his disability. While sleeping at his desk was one of the reasons, this was not the sole symptom of his disability or reason for his dismissal and the headline, while technically accurate, is slightly misleading.

‘Mispronouncing a name could breach equality laws’

Mr Viveak Taneja sued his former employer for unfair dismissal, harassment on the grounds of race and direct discrimination after a colleague repeatedly called him by an incorrect name. 

The ET found that it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant did not have the required two years of continuous employment. His claim for direct discrimination was also dismissed. 

Regarding his being called by an incorrect name on four occasions, the ET found that Mr Taneja had a genuine emotion and sensitivity about his name, and accepted that the mispronunciation of his name by a colleague had the effect of violating Mr Taneja’s dignity and creating an atmosphere which was intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive for him. This therefore amounted to harassment on the grounds of race, and Mr Taneja was awarded the sum of £8,000 plus interest for injury to feelings. 

‘HMRC boss sending worker unwanted birthday card was harassment’

Ms Toure, an HMRC employee, went on sick leave due to work-related stress. She had expressed to her manager that, while on sick leave, correspondence should be kept to a minimum and, if she must be contacted, it should be via email only. However, she was contacted almost every other day by her manager via texts, phone calls and emails, asking for an update on her health and when she would return to work. She was also sent a birthday card on or around her birthday even though she had previously objected to this. 

Ms Toure brought three employment tribunal claims against HMRC which included more than 20 separate allegations of race and disability harassment as well as discrimination and victimisation. 

The ET held that HMRC’s conduct, in repeatedly contacting Ms Toure during her sick leave, was unwanted. It found that ten of her allegations of harassment were well-founded (the remainder were dismissed). So it wasn’t just a birthday card!

To conclude

While none of the headlines are inaccurate, it is perhaps unsurprising that many are attention-grabbing and simplify the issues in the case – that is of course what headlines are for and journalists would not be doing their job if the headline did not encourage a would-be reader to click through or read further down to the longer article. What is clear is that, in a world where we increasingly rely on social media or other soundbites to get a quick fix of the news, the headline is often not the whole story. 

Return to news headlines