We look at the case of Ms A Pereira v Wellington Antiques Ltd and J M Wellington (3303997/2023) where inappropriate remarks left an employer counting the cost.
What happened?
Ms Pereira, who worked at Wellington Antiques Ltd, alleged she was dismissed without fair reason, not properly paid and subjected to sexist and inappropriate behaviour by her employer, Mr Wellington.
The first allegation of sexist behaviour was that Mr Wellington, when responding to Ms Pereira’s verbal request to pay her wages arrears, asked her inappropriate questions about her personal life and finances, including questions to the effect of “What is your story? What is your background? Why do you really want this job?” which was personal information. He also asked ”Why do you need to work?” which was about personal finances, as well as questions about her husband.
The Tribunal concluded that this amounted to “unwanted conduct” in that Ms Pereira found the questions to be intrusive and inappropriate.
They said that 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.
The questions were inappropriate because they were based on an outdated idea that men are the main breadwinners in a house. They created a degrading environment for Ms Pereira, and violated her dignity, in that she felt she had to justify her need and desire to work and felt she had to explain her financial situation when that was a personal matter. The Tribunal found it was reasonable for her to have felt this way, given the inherently sexist nature of the questions.
The claims
- Ms Pereira’s complaint of breach of contract in respect of a commission payment in the amount of £2,000 succeeded.
- Her complaint of breach of contract in respect of her employer’s failure to make employer pension contributions succeeded.
- Her complaint of wrongful dismissal succeeded
- One of her complaints of harassment related to sex, namely that in November 2021, Mr Wellington asked her why she wanted to work, why she needed to earn money, and asked about her husband, succeeded.
- Two of her complaints of victimisation, namely that (1) in January 2023 she was placed on garden leave, and (2) in March 2023 she was not reinstated from garden leave, succeeded.
- Her other claims were dismissed.
Compensation
The tribunal ordered Mrs Pereira’s employer to pay:
- a) Compensation for breach of contract in respect of a commission payment £2,000
- b) Compensation for breach of contract, relating to the failure to pay employer pension contributions from 20th October 2021 to 7th March 2023 £554.40
- c) Compensation for notice pay £210
- d) Compensation for past financial losses, including a 15% uplift for breaches of the ACAS Code of Practice £24,610
- e) Interest on compensation for past financial losses calculated in accordance with the Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 1996 £1,937.34
- f) Compensation for injury to feelings, including a 15% uplift for breaches of the ACAS Code of Practice £18,400
- g) Interest on compensation for injury to feelings calculated in accordance with the Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 1996 £3,133.55
- h) Compensation for failure to provide written statement of particulars £840
- i) Grossing up for taxation £4337.05
Total compensation of £56,022.34
Key Takeaways for Employers
This case is a strong reminder that employers must avoid engaging in outdated and sexist thinking that undermines women’s autonomy and right to work. Asking a woman why she wants or needs to work, especially when framed around a partner’s income, is not only inappropriate but unlawful.
Remarks that might once have been brushed off as casual or “just a joke” are now – and rightly – seen as discriminatory under the law.
Anti-harassment policies must be robust and enforced, not just drafted.
Dismissals must follow a fair, lawful process, backed by clear reasoning and documentation. It should be noted that, in cases of discrimination, where the claimant presents a case which, on the face of it, shows unfavourable treatment from which a Tribunal could draw the inference that this treatment was because of a protected characteristic, the onus will be on the employer to prove otherwise.
Pay obligations must be met in full and on time. Failing to do so leaves employers open to claims such as breach of contract or unlawful deduction of wages.
How can we help?
Have your workplace policies been updated recently? As recently as this month, there have been developments in employment law that need to be taken on board by employers to ensure they stay up to date and legally compliant.
We can support you when you review policies, deal with employment and HR issues or in the event that you find yourself defending a claim made against your business in the employment tribunal.
Call us and ask to speak to our expert employment and HR specialists, who will be only too pleased to help.