A legal secretary was made subject to an ‘offensive environment and arguably an intimidating one’ through comments made by her boss, an employment tribunal has found.

Employment tribunal

Source: iStock

Employment Judge Wilson, sitting at the Lincoln tribunal, said that Marcus Hall, the owner of JGQC Solicitors, subjected Megan Bratt to unwanted conduct of a sexual nature through a series of office interactions.

The judge rejected the firm’s contention that this was ‘merely office banter’ among staff members who were trying to include Bratt. He added that inappropriate and offensive comments made in the office ‘were indicative of the workplace culture and the personalities’ of those involved, and ruled that Bratt’s complaint of sexual harassment was well founded and should succeed.

The tribunal heard that Bratt started with the Lincoln firm in 2022 but resigned seven weeks later. She initially thought that Hall, 62, was ‘just being nice’ to her but later submitted she felt uncomfortable by his actions.

The tribunal ruled out several of Bratt’s allegations but found that she was subjected to unwanted conduct of a sexual nature in several incidents.

Hall sent her a WhatsApp message saying ‘Hi sweetheart see you in the morning’ with two kisses: Hall said he had inadvertently sent it to Bratt rather than his daughter. The judge said that given the content of the message and the fact that Bratt thought it was intended for her, this created an offensive environment.

The tribunal also found that Hall did tell Bratt that his ex-partner had caught him cheating on her with a 22-year-old police officer. He referred to there being a used condom on the floor. ‘Talking about one’s own sexual relationships in this level of detail with someone who is a new and junior employee and not a friend of Mr Hall’s would undoubtedly have the effect the claimant is alleging it had, namely that she found it offensive and uncomfortable,’ said the judge.

Bratt was also uncomfortable when Hall made a comment about her looking nice and added ‘am I allowed to say that?’. Two days later she saw images of women in provocative poses on Hall’s Facebook account when she helped him to install the app.

On another occasion when Hall called the office having left a loaf of bread behind, he used the words ‘fuck’ and ‘wank’ and other expletives. The judge said that even if colleagues appeared to laugh this off, that did not mean Bratt did not find it inappropriate or uncomfortable.

Wilson added that Bratt had not considered the office a safe space to raise any discomfort she was feeling and that colleagues – some of whom appeared as witnesses at the hearing – made her feel uncomfortable.

The judge added: ‘It is all too easy for things to be said and given the label of "banter" or that it was just a joke but this plainly cannot be right. It is immaterial whether the conduct is acceptable to others or is indeed common in the workplace.’

The firm said Bratt had started to make mistakes at work and so she contrived to send messages to her boyfriend saying how difficult she was finding her working environment. The judge said the firm had ‘failed to even contemplate’ that for conduct to amount to sexual harassment, there did not need to be any sexual motivation on the part of the alleged perpetrator.

The claim was stayed for 40 days to allow the terms of an agreed settlement to take effect.