Employment Tribunal warns against “hyper-sensitivity”
A lawyer who took her employer, PSI CRO UK, to a Tribunal over claims of sexual harassment and unfair dismissal has lost her case after a judge cautioned against “encouraging a culture of hyper-sensitivity”.
According to The Times, Nirosha Sithirapathy claimed that she was discriminated against because of her age and sex when she rejected a role abroad for “personal reasons”.
Her manager, Martin Schmidt, reportedly responded to her explanation with: “What personal reasons? You are not married, you don’t have children, and you do not have a boyfriend”.
He is also said to have made comments about the “tolerance” of the Swiss offices – where the role would be based – towards a lesbian staff member.
Sithirapathy argued that the remarks “had the effect of creating a humiliating environment” and made her uncomfortable. However, Judge Emma Hawksworth said Schmidt’s comments were “unfortunate and awkward” but “they did not cross the line such as to amount to unlawful harassment". 'Harassment' is defined as unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct that violates the dignity of a person or creates a hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. In delivering her decision she said, “We bear in mind the importance of not encouraging a culture of hyper-sensitivity or of imposing legal liability to every unfortunate phrase.”
The Employment Tribunal is reported to have accepted Schmidt’s defence that he would have made the same comments to a male employee in that situation.
The Judge said:
“Mr Schmidt in particular spoke very bluntly to the claimant, [but he] was not commenting on Miss Sithirapathy’s relationship status or sexual orientation, he was seeking to convey his understanding about the claimant’s family commitments in the UK. We have therefore concluded that the claimant was not subjected to discrimination, harassment or victimisation. Those complaints fail and are dismissed.”
The Tribunal concluded that Sithirapathy’s employment with the firm was terminated by mutual agreement and therefore rejected her claims of wrongful dismissal and breach of contract.
related content
