An employment tribunal has ruled that questioning a woman’s motivation for working is inherently sexist, as no such questions would be asked of a male candidate.
The decision came after Audrey Pereira, a former sales assistant at Wellington Antiques in Windsor, successfully sued her employer, John Wellington, for sex harassment and other employment-related claims.
Employment Judge Kate Annand found that Wellington’s questioning was based on the belief that men are the primary earners and that he “would not even have thought” to ask a male candidate the same question.
The tribunal ruled that the line of questioning made Pereira feel she had to justify her desire to work – although it was far from the only issue throughout her employment.
Employment dispute over pay and treatment
Pereira began working at Wellington Antiques in October 2021. The tribunal heard that during a discussion about her bank details, Wellington asked personal questions about her faith and husband. In December that same year, Pereira and Wellington discussed the terms of her employment. She later told the tribunal that he was dismissive of the challenges she faced in securing work due to her age and ethnicity.
Pereira also raised concerns about unpaid wages. She was not paid until March 2022 and continued to receive irregular payments. In one instance, she was given £1,300 in cash, which was less than she was owed. She was also denied a £2,000 commission despite meeting her sales targets.
In July 2022, Pereira confronted Wellington about her unpaid commission, only to be accused of claiming other people’s sales. Two weeks later, Pereira sent a message to Wellington. She stated that she did her best for the shop but had been treated like “the dirt on his shoe”.
By October, Pereira had not been paid for three months and lodged a formal grievance. In January 2023, she was placed on paid gardening leave; by March, she concluded that she had been effectively dismissed.
Tribunal findings and legal perspective
The tribunal ruled that Wellington’s questions about Pereira’s motivations for working amounted to sex harassment. Pereira was awarded £56,022.34 in compensation for sex harassment, unpaid wages, wrongful dismissal and two counts of victimisation. Her claims for unfair dismissal, race discrimination and sex discrimination were unsuccessful.
Martin Williams, partner and head of employment at Mayo Wynne Baxter, commented on the case. He said, “The employment relationship should be a fair one. There is an imbalance of power between employer and employee that should not be exploited. In this case, comments were made that significantly undermined the employee’s reason for seeking employment.
“An employee should not be belittled. ‘Dirt on a shoe’ seems to sum up the situation nicely. Even if the employer only views employment as transactional, then, at the very least, complete the transaction. If anyone wants to know how not to go about being a decent employer, then follow the lead of the respondent in this case.”
