In the case of KJ v British Council a British Council employee in Morocco, known as KJ, faced sexual harassment and stalking from her “obsessed” boss, TR, leaving her “terrified.” A tribunal ruled that an internal investigation wrongly blamed her for “encouraging” him.
During the Covid lockdown, KJ remained in Morocco due to her essential role, while most colleagues returned to the UK. Initially, TR assisted KJ, such as arranging flights home after her father’s death. However, his behaviour soon turned obsessive, involving stalking, constant messages, and sexual harassment.
KJ’s formal grievance was dismissed by an internal investigation, which claimed there were no unwanted sexual advances. The tribunal found this decision “inexplicable” and “perverse,” criticizing the notion that flirting equated to consent for harassment, stalking, and assault.
TR, 27 years older than KJ, initially supported her but began sending flirtatious messages by October 2020. Despite KJ’s efforts to convey her disinterest, TR persisted, even showing up at her home and leaving unwanted gifts, which frightened her.
Although KJ reported TR ‘s behaviour, the British Council took no formal action against him. KJ filed a formal complaint in June 2021, which was partially upheld, recognizing physical contact and stalking but not sexual harassment. The investigation concluded that both parties were flirting, a finding the tribunal deemed flawed and biased.
TR was reinstated with a final written warning in June 2022. The tribunal held the British Council liable for TR’s actions and criticized their inadequate response and support for KJ, highlighting the deeply flawed internal investigation. The tribunal condemned the unjustifiable delay and lack of action to protect KJ, attributing inappropriate blame to her for TR’s harassment.
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.
