Manager offered sex act to male worker if he hit £180,000 target
A FEMALE estate agent has been found guilty of sex discrimination after she offered to perform a sex act on a male colleague if he banked £180,000 in income.
Sarah Thompson, 51, made the remark to Paul Elworthy, 45, a senior financial consultant, at a Christmas lunch.
Judges at an employment tribunal unanimously ruled that Mr Elworthy had been subjected to direct sex discrimination by Thompson and should receive compensation.
They said they had “no hesitation in finding that the comment was made because of the claimant’s gender”.
The judges added: “We find that Ms Thompson would not have made an equivalent comment to a woman.”
Mr Elworthy told the hearing in south London: “I attended a senior consultants’ reward lunch. At that meeting Sarah Thompson stated she would provide me with a [sex act] if I hit £180,000 banked income. This was said in the presence of a number of people. It made me feel very uncomfortable. I did not report it as she was my line manager. I would not get a fair hearing.”
Thompson, who works at Your Move’s regional HQ in Chessington, south London, had denied the claims.
When asked by her firm’s HR department in 2015 if she had made the comment she said: “Absolutely not, do you really think I would ever say that? He might have wanted me to.” However, the tribunal heard evidence from members of staff who had attended the Christmas lunch and contradicted Thompson’s denial.
One colleague, Giles Barrett, recalled the remark being made and the reference to £180,000.
When he heard Thompson make the comment he said “does that count for everyone?” and she replied “no, you’re married” – this was followed by laughter.
The panel said that although the comments amounted to sex discrimination they were not harassment.
They found against Mr Elworthy’s claim that he was constructively unfairly dismissed as he had been forced to clean lavatories. At the tribunal he accepted that he had never done any cleaning at work or been disciplined or reprimanded for failing to carry out cleaning duties during the seven years he had been at the firm.
A further hearing will determine the amount of damages.