Chef unfairly dismissed after gender-biased investigation into misconduct allegations
A chef with 7 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a flawed investigation that showed gender bias. The tribunal found the employer treated him less favourably than a female colleague in similar circumstances. He was awarded £33,666.99.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #sex-discrimination
- #victimisation
- #unfair-dismissal
- #wrongful-dismissal
- #performance-improvement-plan
- #investigation-flaws
- #gender-bias
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Chef from 30 July 2013 until dismissal on 16 October 2020.
- The claimant raised a grievance against a female colleague in January 2020 for calling him a 'fucking dick'.
- The claimant was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan on 4 March 2020, shortly after his grievance was upheld.
- The claimant was suspended and investigated in July 2020 after allegations emerged during a safeguarding investigation into others.
- The disciplinary hearing found four allegations substantiated, including a historic toilet cubicle incident, and dismissed the claimant.
- The tribunal found the investigation was not even-handed and showed gender bias, particularly in the treatment of text messages.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began continuous employment as a Chef, later transferred to the respondent.
-
Claimant reported harassment
Claimant told a colleague that SB called him a 'fucking dick'.
-
Formal grievance submitted
Claimant submitted a formal grievance against SB for sex-related harassment.
-
Grievance upheld
Grievance upheld; recommendation that claimant attend all staff meetings.
-
Performance Improvement Plan imposed
Claimant placed on PIP for attendance, food preparation, and following instructions.
-
Suspension and investigation
Claimant suspended pending investigation into allegations arising from Convercent reports.
-
Investigation report
KLE found four allegations substantiated and referred to disciplinary hearing.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed by SE for misconduct.
-
Appeal dismissed
JK dismissed the claimant's appeal.
-
Judgment and remedy
Tribunal found unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, sex discrimination, and victimisation; awarded £33,666.99.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the chef was unfairly dismissed, wrongfully dismissed, and subjected to direct sex discrimination and victimisation in relation to a performance improvement plan, suspension, disciplinary process, dismissal, and appeal.
The outcome
The tribunal found in favour of the chef on all claims: unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, direct sex discrimination (in the disciplinary findings, dismissal, and appeal), and victimisation (in the performance improvement plan).
The key reasons were that the investigation was not even-handed and showed gender bias. The employer treated the chef less favourably than a female colleague in similar circumstances, particularly in how text messages were assessed.
Compensation breakdown:
- Basic award: £2,730.47
- Total damages: £33,666.99
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must ensure investigations are even-handed and free from gender bias, especially when comparing treatment of male and female employees in similar situations.
- Placing an employee on a performance improvement plan shortly after they raise a grievance can be seen as victimisation.
- Inconsistent treatment of evidence, such as text messages, can be a strong indicator of discrimination.
- A flawed investigation that fails to be balanced will likely render any subsequent dismissal unfair.
A case of gender bias in the workplace
This case highlights how a flawed investigation can lead to findings of unfair dismissal and sex discrimination. The chef, who had worked for the nursery for seven years, was dismissed after allegations emerged during a safeguarding investigation into other staff. The tribunal found that the investigation was not even-handed and showed gender bias, particularly in how text messages were treated. A female colleague who had made similar comments was not disciplined, while the chef was dismissed.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have avoided this outcome by conducting a more balanced investigation. The tribunal noted that the investigator failed to properly consider the context of the chef's text messages and did not apply the same standards to the female colleague. A fair process would have involved comparing the evidence against both employees consistently and ensuring that the disciplinary decision was based on a thorough and impartial assessment.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case serves as a reminder that employers must be vigilant against gender bias in disciplinary processes. Employees who believe they have been treated unfairly due to their sex, or who have been victimised for raising grievances, may have strong claims. The award of £33,666.99 reflects the seriousness of the failings, including the impact on the chef's career and the discriminatory treatment he endured.
Similar cases
Dismissed without notice and discriminated against: a double blow for a former employee
A former employee was unfairly dismissed, wrongfully dismissed without notice, and discriminated against on grounds of sex. The tribunal awarded £16,208.68, including an uplift for the employer's failure to follow the ACAS code.
Harassment claim against individual manager allowed to proceed late
A former employee's harassment and victimisation claims against her employer were deemed in time if there was conduct over a period, but time was extended for a harassment claim against the individual manager.
Disability harassment and victimisation: former employee awarded £320,000 after employer goes into liquidation
A former employee with a disability was awarded over £320,000 after an employment tribunal found she was harassed, victimised, and unfairly dismissed by Woods Catering Staffordshire Ltd and its director.
Dismissed security guard wins unfair dismissal and victimisation claims
A former employee of Cerberus Security and Monitoring Services Ltd has succeeded in unfair dismissal and victimisation claims after being dismissed for conduct failings. Remedy is yet to be determined.