Sexist comment and unfair dismissal: former employee awarded £5,665
A former employee who was unfairly dismissed and subjected to a sexist comment by a director has been awarded £5,665.07 by the Cambridge Employment Tribunal.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #unfair-dismissal
- #disability-discrimination
- #sex-discrimination
- #harassment
- #written-statement-reasons
- #acute-driving-anxiety
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by the respondent and presented claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, disability discrimination, and sex discrimination.
- The respondent did not initially respond to the claim, leading to a default judgment which was later set aside.
- The claimant was found to be disabled due to acute driving anxiety from 29 April to 2 May 2020.
- The claimant was unfairly dismissed.
- The claimant succeeded in a harassment claim related to sex for a comment made on 1 May 2020.
- The respondent failed to provide written reasons for dismissal.
Timeline
-
Claimant became disabled
The claimant was found to be a disabled person due to acute driving anxiety from this date.
-
Harassment comment
Gary Norton said to the claimant words to the effect that 'because you are a woman, you can get away with everything, you don’t even go into the shop and serve'.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented an ET1 claim to the Watford Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, disability discrimination, and sex discrimination.
-
Default judgment
Employment Judge Ord entered a default judgment under rule 21 due to no response from the respondent, and set a remedy hearing for 29 April 2021.
-
Respondent received judgment
The respondent first became aware of the proceedings when they received a copy of the default judgment.
-
ET3 filed
The respondent filed an ET3 response, seeking an extension of time.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge KJ Palmer set aside the default judgment and extended time for the ET3, finding the respondent had not received the ET1.
-
Final hearing (day 1)
The substantive hearing began in person at Cambridge.
-
Final hearing (day 2)
The hearing continued in person.
-
Final hearing (day 3) and remedy
The hearing concluded by CVP, and the tribunal issued judgments on liability and remedy.
-
Remedy judgment
Employment Judge Tynan issued the remedy judgment with total award of £5,665.07.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed, whether she was discriminated against due to disability or sex, and whether she was harassed related to sex, as well as the appropriate remedy.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claimant's claims for unfair dismissal and sex-related harassment, but dismissed her claims for disability discrimination and wrongful dismissal.
The key reasons were:
- The employer failed to follow a fair procedure before dismissing the claimant.
- A director made a comment to the claimant that 'because you are a woman, you can get away with everything', which the tribunal found to be unwanted conduct related to sex, violating her dignity.
- The claimant's acute driving anxiety did not amount to a disability for the relevant period, so the disability discrimination claim failed.
Compensation breakdown:
- Basic award: £1,687.50
- Compensatory award: £2,003.32
- Total: £5,665.07 (including other heads of loss not specified)
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should ensure they follow a fair dismissal process, including giving the employee a chance to respond to concerns before making a decision.
- Sexist comments in the workplace, even if said in jest, can amount to unlawful harassment and lead to compensation awards.
- Employees who believe they have been unfairly dismissed or harassed should consider bringing a claim to the employment tribunal, even if they are representing themselves.
- Employers must respond promptly to tribunal claims to avoid default judgments being entered against them.
A sexist comment and a flawed dismissal
This case shows how a single inappropriate comment can lead to a harassment finding, even when other discrimination claims fail. The claimant, a former employee of Norton Industrial Fasteners Ltd, was told by a director: 'because you are a woman, you can get away with everything, you don’t even go into the shop and serve.' The tribunal found this was unwanted conduct related to sex that violated her dignity, amounting to harassment.
What the employer did wrong
The employer dismissed the claimant without following a fair procedure. The tribunal noted that the employer did not give the claimant a proper opportunity to respond to concerns before deciding to dismiss. This procedural failure made the dismissal unfair. The employer also failed to provide written reasons for the dismissal, which is a legal requirement.
Why the result matters
This case is a reminder that even small employers can face liability for unfair dismissal and harassment. The claimant represented herself, showing that it is possible to succeed without a lawyer. The compensation of £5,665.07 reflects the losses suffered, including a basic award and compensatory award. For employees, it highlights the importance of documenting any inappropriate comments and challenging unfair treatment. For employers, it underscores the need for fair procedures and respectful communication in the workplace.
Similar cases
Partially granted amendment to add details to reasonable adjustments claim, but new sex discrimination claims refused
A former employee was allowed to amend her claim to add details to a failure to make reasonable adjustments claim, but her attempt to add new claims of direct sex discrimination and harassment was refused by the tribunal.
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.
Unfair dismissal found but compensation cut by 10% for employee's own conduct
A former employee was unfairly dismissed by Tesco, but the tribunal reduced his compensation by 10% because his own conduct contributed to the dismissal. Discrimination claims were dismissed.
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.