Car salesman's claim over 'paedophile' taunts fails: comments not linked to sexual orientation
An employment tribunal dismissed a car salesman's harassment claim after finding that derogatory comments calling him a paedophile were not related to his sexual orientation. The claimant, who represented himself, was unable to link the abuse to a protected characteristic.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #sexual-orientation-harassment
- #paedophile-allegations
- #toxic-workplace-culture
- #litigant-in-person
- #time-limits
- #amendment-refused
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a salesman from 24 July 2017 until dismissal on 3 September 2020 for gross misconduct (assault).
- The claimant alleged that his line manager, Jon Gill, made daily derogatory comments suggesting he was a paedophile from September 2017 to August 2020.
- The tribunal found that the comments were not related to sexual orientation as defined by the Equality Act 2010.
- The claimant's application to amend his claim to include sex discrimination and unfair dismissal was refused as out of time.
- The respondent's application to strike out the claim was refused, but the harassment claim was dismissed after a full hearing.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began work as a salesman for Swansway Garages Ltd.
-
Alleged abuse began
Claimant alleges Jon Gill started making derogatory comments about him being a paedophile.
-
Verbal abuse by colleague
Stefan Strugaru referred to claimant as 'the one that likes to play with kids'.
-
Assault incident
Claimant assaulted Stefan Strugaru, leading to suspension.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed for gross misconduct (assault and offensive WhatsApp messages).
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal against dismissal heard by Ben Gilbert; dismissed on 29 September 2020.
-
Grievance meeting
Claimant raised grievance about Jon Gill's comments; grievance investigated.
-
Claim presented
ET1 claim form presented, alleging harassment related to sexual orientation.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Dimbylow refused amendment and strike-out applications.
-
Final hearing
Substantive hearing of harassment claim before Employment Judge Kenward and members.
-
Judgment
Harassment claim dismissed; oral reasons given.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether repeated derogatory comments calling the claimant a paedophile amounted to harassment related to sexual orientation under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the harassment claim after a full hearing. The key reason was that the comments were not related to the claimant's sexual orientation – they were personal insults that did not reference or target his sexuality. The tribunal also refused the claimant's late application to add claims for sex discrimination and unfair dismissal, as those were out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend the deadline. No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- For a harassment claim to succeed, the unwanted conduct must be related to a protected characteristic like sexual orientation – offensive comments alone are not enough.
- Time limits for bringing discrimination claims are strict; if you miss the three-month deadline, the tribunal can refuse to hear your case even if the facts are strong.
- If you want to add new claims to an existing case, do so as early as possible – late amendments are often refused, especially if they are out of time.
- Representing yourself can be challenging; legal advice early on can help identify the correct legal basis for your claim and avoid procedural pitfalls.
When offensive words are not enough for a harassment claim
This case shows that even deeply offensive workplace comments may not amount to unlawful harassment if they are not linked to a protected characteristic. The claimant, a car salesman with three years' service, alleged that his line manager called him a paedophile on a near-daily basis for three years. Another colleague also referred to him as 'the one that likes to play with kids'. The tribunal accepted that these comments were made, but found they were not related to his sexual orientation – they were personal insults of a different nature.
What the employer could have done differently
While Swansway Garages successfully defended the claim, the case highlights the importance of addressing toxic workplace behaviour early. The comments had been going on for years before the claimant eventually assaulted a colleague and was dismissed. A prompt investigation into the alleged harassment might have prevented the situation escalating. However, the tribunal's focus was on the legal test, not on whether the employer's culture was acceptable.
Why this matters for similar claims
This decision is a reminder that the Equality Act 2010 protects employees from harassment only when it is 'related to' a protected characteristic such as sexual orientation, race, or sex. General bullying or offensive name-calling, while potentially actionable under other laws (like constructive dismissal or personal injury), does not automatically fall under discrimination law. Claimants should carefully consider whether the conduct they experienced is linked to a protected characteristic before bringing a claim to the employment tribunal.
Similar cases
Whistleblowing claim dismissed as out of time: litigant in person failed to act promptly
A multiskilled operative who resigned and claimed constructive unfair dismissal for whistleblowing had his claims thrown out because he did not present them in time. The tribunal also rejected his disability discrimination claim for lack of medical evidence.
Whistleblowing amendment refused after unfair dismissal claim struck out for insufficient service
A former employee who tried to add whistleblowing and harassment claims months after her unfair dismissal claim was struck out for lack of two years' service. The tribunal refused the amendment due to delay and prejudice to the employer.
Senior technician dismissed after colleague's electric shock: fair dismissal upheld
A senior technician with 12 years' service was fairly dismissed after failing to lock out a damaged charger, leading to a colleague's electric shock. The tribunal rejected his claims of unfair dismissal and homophobic harassment.
Costs bid fails against former employee who withdrew most claims
An employer's application for £1,435 in costs was dismissed after the tribunal found the former employee had not acted unreasonably and her breach of contract claim had some prospect of success.