In the case of Ms L A C v Mr M B and Integer Wealth Global Ltd Mr MB, 59, made repeated advances towards Ms LC, 49, throughout 2021 and 2022, when he sent her adoring messages, referring to her as his ‘second wife’, and the ‘Belle of the Ball’.
In an attempt to woo her, married Mr MB swamped her with adoring messages, complimented her ‘fashion model’ looks, and even bought her a diamond solitaire ‘commitment’ ring, an employment tribunal heard.
The finance businessman’s ‘excessive attempt to engage in a romantic relationship’ failed however and he fired Ms LC after she firmly rejected him.
The finance executive said she was ‘constantly’ humiliated and degraded by the company chairman, who referred to her as ‘girl’, ‘brat’, and ‘naughty’ in front of their colleagues in an attempt to reinforce ‘his idea’ that he ‘owned’ her.
The company chairman also offered to buy the pair a ‘love nest’ in Cyprus, flattered her ‘gorgeous feet’ and on one occasion ‘physically pulled’ her onto his lap in front of her partner.
Despite feeling ‘totally helpless’ and as if she was ‘his property’, Ms LC ignored his advances because she ‘did not want to rock the boat’.
The tribunal found Ms LC was in a ‘subordinate’ position but required an income as a single mother and didn’t want to ‘damage her employment prospects’.
Upholding her claims of discrimination and harassment, Employment Judge James Dawson said: ‘We are satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the behaviour of [Mr MB] was inextricably linked to the fact that [Ms LC] was a woman.
‘Not only because the behaviour reflects the fact he was a heterosexual man who was romantically attracted to her but also because of the gender-specific language used on a large number of occasions such as ‘girl’, ‘honey’ ‘wife’ and ‘naughty’.
‘We have included the word naughty because, in its context, we do not think that he would have written in a similar way to a man.
‘We also think, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent would not have described a man as beautiful and, for instance, sent him a vase saying that the flowers in the vase would never surpass his beauty.’
Awarding her compensation, he said: ‘There was a period of harassment when [Ms LC] was asking Mr MB to stop and he was not respecting this.
‘She did not bring it on herself, and it was not acceptable.’
She has now been awarded £99,214 in compensation.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
