Is asking a woman why she wants to work sexist?

An antiques dealer, John Wellington, has been ordered to pay his former employee, identified here as AP, £56,022.34 after asking her why she wanted to work, and other personal questions.

Background

The Claimant was employed by Wellington Antiques Limited as a part-time sales assistant. Her employment started in October 2021.

During a discussion about her bank details, Mr Wellington asked personal and intrusive questions about her faith. The Claimant alleged that she was asked why she wanted to work and why she needed the money, as well as being asked about her husband. The Claimant told her employer that she needed sustainable employment and said that this was challenging given her age and South Asian origin. The Claimant alleged that Mr Wellington responded by saying “blacks and gays have it worse”, which the Claimant felt invalidated her experience. Mr Wellington denied saying this as well as asking about her family or finances, but the tribunal accepted the Claimant’s evidence as the Claimant had provided a typed version of her diary in which she had recorded the comments made by Mr Wellington.

The Claimant worked up until December 2021 without having received payment of wages. She raised concerns about unpaid wages but was told that there had been some delays with HMRC. She was not paid until March 2022 when she was given £1,300 in cash as a payment towards her wages, which was less than she was owed.

The Claimant asked about an itemised pay slip, PAYE, National Insurance, and pension contributions and was told by Mr Wellington that it was being dealt with by HMRC and the Claimant “had no right to a contract until he deemed ready”.

She was paid sporadically over the next months, receiving different amounts on different dates. She was not given pay slips, and she continued to have a shortfall. The Claimant was not enrolled in a pension scheme, and she was not paid by PAYE. 

The Claimant alleged that two white British employees were paid monthly and on PAYE, whereas she and another employee were not. The Claimant also alleged that those who worked full-time were paid £80 per day, whereas she, who was part-time, was paid £70 per day.

In June 2022, there was a discussion about a sales target between the Claimant and Mr Wellington. The Claimant said she was set the target of selling £12,000 worth of goods in two months, and it was agreed that if she achieved this, she would be paid £2,000 as commission. Mr Wellington refused to pay her this commission, despite meeting her sales targets.

Unpaid wages continued which caused the Claimant a considerable amount of stress and she was signed off sick. During this time, the Claimant alleged that the rota was changed, reducing her hours to two days per week.

The Claimant ultimately agreed to go on garden leave, but by the beginning of March believed she had been effectively dismissed. She was not paid her wages, holiday pay or sick pay, The Claimant also raised a grievance but this was ignored.

Judgment

The Claimant partially won her case after Employment Judge Kate Annand ruled that the intrusive questions were based on the ‘outdated idea’ that men were the main breadwinners. Employment Judge Annand said the questions were ‘inherently sexist’ and made the Claimant feel she needed to justify why she wanted to work.

The tribunal found that these questions were related to sex in that they were motivated by the Claimant’s sex and the tribunal found it was unlikely that Mr Wellington would have asked a male who was seeking a role why they needed to work, why they needed to earn money, or asked them questions about their wife. She said the questions “created a degrading environment” and “violated her dignity”.

The Claimant was awarded £56,022.34 in compensation for sex harassment, unpaid wages, wrongful dismissal and two complaints of victimisation for being put on garden leave and not being reinstated. The Claimant’s claims for unfair dismissal, race discrimination and sex discrimination were not successful.

Comment

This case is a prime example that employers need to be mindful of workplace language and that training is the key to preventing conduct such as this.

For more information about this article or any other aspect of people services reimagined, download our App for Apple or Android, and contact your integrated HR, employment law and health & safety team at AfterAthena today.