Office manager who resigned over pay disparity loses constructive dismissal claim
An office manager who resigned after discovering a colleague was paid £10,000 more lost her constructive dismissal and sex discrimination claims. The tribunal found no fundamental breach of contract.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant worked for the respondent from 16 April 2016 to 30 April 2018 as an office manager.
- The claimant discovered in December 2017 that a newer employee was paid £10,000 more than her.
- The claimant raised a grievance in January 2018, which was rejected in March 2018.
- The claimant was invited to a disciplinary meeting on 29 March 2018 regarding fee note delays.
- The disciplinary outcome on 10 April 2018 recommended a job description and process improvements, but was not communicated in writing before the claimant resigned.
- The claimant alleged sexual harassment by the third respondent, including unwanted touching and sexual comments, which the tribunal found not proven.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began working for the first respondent.
-
Contract issued
The claimant received a contract of employment describing her as Office Manager.
-
Discovered pay disparity
The claimant discovered that a newer employee, Christina, was paid £10,000 more than her.
-
Grievance email
The claimant emailed partners stating she was 'close to resignation', which was treated as a grievance.
-
Grievance meeting
Mr Marcus met with the claimant to discuss her grievance.
-
Grievance outcome
Mr Marcus sent a letter rejecting the claimant's grievance.
-
R3 relocated
The third respondent moved to work at the Kings Avenue office.
-
Disciplinary invitation
The claimant received an invitation to a disciplinary meeting regarding fee note delays.
-
Disciplinary meeting
The disciplinary meeting took place; Mr Marcus recommended a job description and process improvements.
-
Resignation oral
The claimant orally resigned to Mr Christofi.
-
Resignation letter
The claimant confirmed her resignation in writing, alleging harassment by R3.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's actions—rejecting the pay grievance, inviting the claimant to a disciplinary meeting, and failing to communicate the outcome—amounted to a constructive dismissal, and whether the claimant was sexually harassed by a colleague.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims.
- The constructive dismissal claim failed because the employer's conduct was not so serious as to justify resignation. The grievance was properly considered and rejected, and the disciplinary process was reasonable.
- The sex discrimination claims failed because the tribunal found no evidence of less favourable treatment on grounds of sex. The pay disparity was not linked to gender, and the sexual harassment allegations were not proven.
- No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- A pay disparity alone, without evidence of discrimination, is unlikely to justify constructive dismissal.
- Raising a grievance does not protect an employee from legitimate disciplinary processes.
- To succeed in a constructive dismissal claim, you must show the employer committed a fundamental breach of contract that left you no choice but to resign.
- Sexual harassment allegations must be supported by credible evidence; unsubstantiated claims will be dismissed.
A resignation that didn't stick
This case shows the difficulty of proving constructive dismissal when an employer has followed a reasonable process. The office manager, who had worked for AGK Partnership Ltd for just over two years, resigned after discovering a newer colleague was paid £10,000 more. She raised a grievance, which was rejected, and was then invited to a disciplinary meeting about fee note delays. The disciplinary outcome recommended improvements but was not formally communicated before she quit.
What the tribunal looked at
The tribunal examined whether the employer's actions amounted to a fundamental breach of contract. It found that the grievance was properly handled—the partners met with the claimant and gave reasoned responses. The disciplinary process was also reasonable: the meeting was held, and although the outcome wasn't written up, the delay was not a breach. The tribunal also rejected the sexual harassment claims, finding the alleged incidents were either not proven or did not amount to harassment.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that constructive dismissal claims require a high bar. Employees who feel underpaid or unfairly treated should consider whether the employer's conduct truly destroys the trust and confidence needed for the employment relationship. A single pay disparity, without evidence of discrimination or a pattern of poor treatment, is unlikely to succeed. The case also underscores the importance of keeping clear records and communicating outcomes promptly, though here the employer's lapses were not enough to tip the balance.
Similar cases
Constructive dismissal after sexual harassment: default judgment and compensation
A former employee won a constructive dismissal and sexual harassment claim after their employer failed to respond to the tribunal claim. They were awarded £8,091.66 in compensation.
Veterinary receptionist sexually harassed by colleague: constructive dismissal upheld
An employment tribunal found that a veterinary receptionist with 8 years' service was constructively and unfairly dismissed after enduring a series of sex-related comments and unwanted physical contact from a colleague. The tribunal upheld claims of harassment and sex discrimination.
Care worker's constructive dismissal claim dismissed as too late
A care worker who resigned in September 2021 but did not bring her claim until May 2022 had her unfair dismissal and discrimination claims thrown out by the Birmingham tribunal as out of time.
Sexual harassment by manager: administrator awarded £17,607 after boss sent explicit texts
An administrator who was sexually harassed by her boss, who sent explicit texts and propositioned her, has been awarded £17,607 by an employment tribunal. The employer failed to defend the claim.