A solicitor allegedly described by a manager as a ‘ballbreaker’ has been awarded more than £150,000 for the sex discrimination and unfair dismissal she suffered at work.
In a remedy judgment, employment Judge Jones, sitting in the east London hearing centre, awarded Helena Biggs £53,840 for injury to feelings and £28,581 for past lost wages. With interest and other extras included, the total awarded to Biggs was £151,811.
The shipping specialist had worked for City of London insurance business A Billborough & Company Ltd for almost 14 years but had been paid less than her male colleague for five years after they were both promoted to associate director.
The tribunal had heard that when Biggs had told the claims director of her firm that she was pregnant, he had gone directly to another female employee and told her to ‘keep her legs shut’. The same director had then commented that a friendship between Biggs and a female client might be because the client was a lesbian. He had claimed in his evidence he was pointing this out to 'protect' Biggs.
When Biggs and a male colleague were allocated work, another claims director said he could not give her a particular fleet because she was a woman. Biggs was told that the operators of the fleet held sexist views and could not be forced to work with her.
The tribunal heard that during a discussion about key performance indicators, Biggs heard one director describe her as ‘pushy’, which she considered to be a negative term to describe assertive women. Soon after, the same director suggested she should deal with a particular client by sitting down and talking about the project ‘using your charm’.
The judge had ruled that references to her being ‘overly dominant’ and ‘incredibly ambitious’ by bosses were negative statements about her drive and hard work, which were not judgements that would be made of a man.
She was subjected to unfair criticism because of her complaints about equal pay and given objectives which 'amounted to an excessive and impossible workload… put together because of her gender and to create an oppressive environment for her’. While her line manager made time to meet with her colleague fortnightly, he ‘did not relish’ meeting with the claimant and put it off.
The tribunal ruled that Biggs was unfairly dismissed on the grounds of her protected disclosures. The employer had submitted that she was dismissed because of ‘personality clashes due to irreconcilable differences’ with colleagues.
Claims for unfair dismissal, sex discrimination, equal pay and victimisation were all successful.
