Tory peer victimised female worker at firm
Sun Mark boss Lord Ranger accused worker of being ‘big-time lying woman’ in dealing with sexual harassment case
A Tory peer who has championed equality and empowerment for women “discriminated against” a female worker at his multimillion pound company, an employment tribunal has ruled. It found that Lord Ranger had “victimised”, “harassed” and “discriminated against” the woman, and so broke employment law, because of the way he handled her complaint of sexual harassment by one of the senior executives at his Sun Mark firm. Lord Ranger strongly denied the allegations.
A TORY peer who has championed equality and empowerment for women “discriminated against” a female worker at his multi-million pound firm, an employment tribunal has ruled.
Lord Ranger used his maiden speech in the House of Lords last year to advocate for women, telling peers that “empowerment and equality for women everywhere is a necessity”.
However, in an “intemperate” phone call, he told a woman who had just complained to him that she was being sexually harassed by one of the senior executives at his Sun Mark firm that he would not “spare her”, and criticised her for “arguing with men like a proper quarrelsome woman”.
A partial recording of the call was played at a Watford employment tribunal in September last year, after the victim took Sun Mark and some of its executives to court over their behaviour.
The tribunal found that Lord Ranger had “victimised”, “harassed” and “discriminated against” the woman, breaking employment laws, because of the way he handled her complaint.
Lord Ranger has strongly denied the allegations against him, claiming that the victim provoked him before she started to record their conversation, and has been granted permission to appeal along with another of the firm’s executives.
The case was subject to reporting restrictions, which is not uncommon in employment tribunal cases of this nature, up to the point that a judge finds that the allegations are true.
However, Lord Ranger, Sun Mark and other executives at the firm, subsequently tried to extend the anonymity even after the judges had found against them. Lord Ranger’s legal team argued that his name, and the names of his firm and several of its executives, should all be kept out of the public domain – partly, they claimed, in order to conceal the identity of the victim.
The woman, who is known as Ms A, had asserted her right to anonymity under the Sexual Offences Amendment Act. However, she made it clear in court that she did not believe that naming Lord Ranger or any of the defendants would reveal her identity to the public, and subsequently waived her right to anonymity for the judgment.
Details of the case can be disclosed following applications led by The Daily Telegraph to have reporting restrictions lifted. The revelations are likely to raise fresh questions over the extent to which wealthy figures in Britain are able to use their riches to try and ensure that their reputations are untainted.
The tribunal heard that Ms A telephoned Lord Ranger in October 2018 to say that she was being sexually harassed by Sun Mark’s head of finance, Kapil Sharma, and had been driven to the brink of suicide by his behaviour.
According to the judgment, Ms A was not speaking in a “controlled manner” but rather than referring her to an internal inquiry, Lord Ranger “lost his composure and insulted” her. Speaking mostly in Punjabi, Lord Ranger branded her a “big-time lying woman”, a “vulgar thing” who had “spread her vulgarity all around”, and accused her of ruining her parents’ honour.
“Listen, there is no point in trying to act too smart… i won’t spare you… because don’t you ever think that you are the only one who is capable of defaming someone,” he said.
Judge Alastair Smail said that Lord Ranger’s behaviour “had an effect of violating the claimant’s dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive environment for her”, and that he had insulted her in a way which “related to her gender and the fact that she was raising an allegation of sexual harassment”.
Last night, Sun Mark issued a statement claiming that “the call amounted to entrapment” and that Ms A had “deliberately goaded” Lord Ranger before secretly recording the conversation.
She had complained about the response of Harmeet Ahuja, Sun Mark’s chief executive and Lord Ranger’s sonin-law, to whom she had initially complained about Mr Sharma.
Mr Ahuja “victimised” the woman by asking her to “consider the implications for her job, visa and honour” if she pursued a formal complaint against her harasser, the tribunal found. He has since been granted permission to appeal the finding. None the less, the peer insisted he would have investigated the matter properly and dealt with it fairly – even after the call.
The woman was found by the court to have been subjected to “unwanted sexual attention” by Mr Sharma, who is married with children.
However, the court did not uphold further allegations that Mr Sharma had assaulted her and rejected allegations that he had threatened her with rape.
Mr Sharma said that while the tribunal dismissed “all of the most serious allegations which were brought against me”, he remains “disappointed that one claim was upheld ‘on the balance of probabilities’ – particularly as the tribunal found the claimant not to be a reliable witness”. He is currently seeking leave to appeal.
Last night, the company said it has reopened the investigation into Mr Sharma, but will await the outcome of his application to appeal before “considering whether disciplinary action is necessary”.
In a lengthy statement, it strongly denied the allegations against Lord Ranger: ‘The tribunal acknowledged
‘[The behaviour] had an effect of violating the claimant’s dignity and creating a... humiliating and offensive environment for her’
there is no history of discrimination or harassment in any of our companies. The company, chairman and directors take their responsibilities as an employer very seriously; we do not accept harassment of any kind in the workplace and we take remedial action if there is any cause for concern.’
It added: “We strongly deny allegations of victimisation, harassment and discrimination against our chairman and chief executive and the Employment Appeal Tribunal has granted them an appeal on numerous grounds, including to consider whether the tribunal has erred in its decision that the claimant did not act in bad faith.
“The tribunal found the claimant had ‘exaggerated matters considerably’ and ‘distorted’ evidence, ruling that she was ‘not entirely a reliable witness’.”
Sun Mark added that the application to keep the case out of the public domain was “predominantly based on the claimant’s right to anonymity, which she understandably wanted to protect” noting that the company had withdrawn that application when the victim decided to waive that right.