A senior Google employee has told an employment tribunal that she was made redundant in retaliation for reporting sexual harassment by a manager, in a case alleging workplace retaliation and a problematic culture.
The claim, heard at the Central London Employment Tribunal, centres on conduct that she says was repeatedly overlooked and retaliation she says followed her complaints.
Victoria Woodall, who worked as a senior industry head in Google’s UK sales and agencies team, says that after reporting inappropriate conduct by a manager, she was subjected to what she has described in legal filings as a “relentless campaign of retaliation” that culminated in her redundancy. She remains employed by the company but is on long-term sickness payments for work-related stress while the claim is being decided.
Google acknowledges that Woodall’s reporting of the manager’s conduct was a whistleblowing act, but denies that her redundancy was retaliatory, saying her position was one of 26 roles across the team and department that were closed during a broader reorganisation.
 |
Get our essential daily HR news and updates. |
Allegations of inappropriate conduct and internal response
According to the claim, the dispute began in 2022 after Woodall was contacted by a client who said a manager had made sexually explicit remarks about his personal life during a business lunch and later showed a nude image of his wife. The client described the behaviour as unprompted and inappropriate, details of which form part of Woodall’s tribunal filing.
Woodall reported the incident to her then-boss, at which point Google initiated an internal investigation. Tribunal documents seen by the BBC show the company found that the manager had sexually harassed two female colleagues by touching them without their consent at a work event, behaviour the company’s investigation said breached its policies.
The manager was subsequently dismissed for gross misconduct, while his line manager and another senior colleague were recommended for documented coaching for failing to intervene. They were later made redundant.
Claims of retaliation and cultural issues
Woodall says her own treatment deteriorated after she made her complaint, alleging she was shifted onto a client account that left her vulnerable and later moved into a subordinate role on a project. She also told the tribunal that her performance was later downgraded by her boss, actions she says were linked to her having raised concerns about the manager’s conduct and the response of others in the team.
In response to those claims, Google has said that the decisions taken about her role and the wider departmental changes were business decisions and not retaliation for whistleblowing. Google also disputed allegations of a pervasive “boys’ club” culture in Woodall’s team, although it ended a men-only chairman’s lunch that featured in her claim.
The London Central Employment Tribunal is expected to issue a judgment in the coming weeks. The case touches on complex areas of UK employment law, including the interaction between whistleblowing protections and redundancy processes. It will be watched closely by HR practitioners concerned with how large employers handle internal investigations of harassment and subsequent organisational change.
Whistleblowing protections under UK law
UK law protects workers who raise concerns about wrongdoing in the public interest, including allegations of harassment, discrimination or breaches of legal duty. These protections are set out in the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.
To qualify for protection, a disclosure must relate to specific types of wrongdoing and be made to an appropriate person, such as an employer or regulator. Where a disclosure meets the legal test, workers are protected from being dismissed or subjected to detriment because they spoke up.
Importantly, there is no minimum length of service required for whistleblowing protection. If a tribunal finds that a dismissal or other adverse treatment was materially influenced by a protected disclosure, employers can face uncapped compensation awards.
