Sexual harassment and victimisation: two employees awarded £119,000 after constructive dismissal
Two employees who resigned after suffering sexual harassment, age harassment and victimisation have been awarded a total of £119,275.86 by the Nottingham Employment Tribunal.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- Both claimants were found to be disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010.
- Mr A suffered two acts of victimisation: suspension on 11 September 2018 and non-payment of bonus on 15 October 2018.
- Ms B suffered twelve acts of sexual harassment, three acts of age harassment, and two acts of victimisation.
- Both claimants resigned and were constructively dismissed on 29 November 2018.
- The tribunal found that the claimants failed to mitigate their loss and limited compensation to 26 weeks for Mr A and 12 months for Ms B.
- No Polkey or contributory conduct deductions were applied, and no ACAS uplift was awarded.
Timeline
-
Ms B started employment
Ms B began working for the First Respondent.
-
Mr A started employment
Mr A began working for the First Respondent.
-
First act of discrimination against Ms B
The first act of sexual harassment occurred.
-
Claimants began experiencing symptoms
Both claimants began experiencing symptoms of mental impairment.
-
Suspension of both claimants
Both claimants were suspended from work.
-
Non-payment of Mr A's bonus
Mr A's bonus was not paid, constituting victimisation.
-
Constructive dismissal
Both claimants resigned and were constructively dismissed.
-
Disability preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Blackwell found both claimants disabled.
-
Liability hearing commenced
Liability hearing before Employment Judge Hutchinson.
-
Remedy hearing commenced
Remedy hearing before Employment Judge Hutchinson.
-
Remedy judgment issued
Final remedy judgment with awards.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide the appropriate remedy for claims of unfair constructive dismissal, sexual harassment, age harassment and victimisation, including compensation for injury to feelings and loss of earnings.
The outcome
The tribunal awarded a total of £119,275.86 in compensation to the two former employees.
- Mr A received £2,437.80 basic award and £1,200 compensatory award for victimisation (suspension and non-payment of bonus).
- Ms B received compensation for twelve acts of sexual harassment, three acts of age harassment, and two acts of victimisation.
- No Polkey or contributory conduct deductions were applied, and no ACAS uplift was awarded.
- Compensation was limited because the tribunal found both claimants failed to mitigate their loss: 26 weeks for Mr A and 12 months for Ms B.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees who suffer harassment or victimisation should keep detailed records of each incident, as multiple acts can strengthen a claim.
- Resigning and claiming constructive dismissal requires showing the employer's conduct was a fundamental breach of contract – legal advice is recommended.
- Claimants have a duty to mitigate their losses after dismissal; failing to seek alternative work can significantly reduce compensation.
- Disability status can be established even without a formal diagnosis, if medical evidence shows a substantial and long-term effect on daily activities.
This case shows how a toxic work environment can lead to multiple forms of unlawful behaviour – and how the law can provide redress, but with limits. Two employees, who both became disabled due to workplace stress, endured sexual harassment, age-related comments, and victimisation before feeling forced to resign. The tribunal found that the employer's conduct amounted to constructive dismissal and discrimination.
What the employer did wrong
The employer failed to protect Ms B from repeated sexual harassment over more than a year, and allowed a culture where ageist remarks were made. When the employees raised concerns, they were suspended and Mr A was denied a bonus – acts the tribunal labelled as victimisation. The employer could have prevented the case by taking complaints seriously, investigating promptly, and supporting the employees rather than penalising them.
Why the compensation was capped
Although the tribunal found in favour of both claimants, it reduced their compensation because they did not take enough steps to find new work after resigning. Mr A's loss was limited to 26 weeks, and Ms B's to 12 months. This is a reminder that employment tribunal awards are designed to compensate for actual loss, not to punish the employer, and claimants must actively seek to minimise their financial harm.
What this means for similar claims
The case highlights that multiple discrimination claims can be brought together, and that even without a lawyer, claimants can succeed. However, the duty to mitigate loss is strict – waiting too long to look for a new job can cost thousands in reduced compensation. For employers, the message is clear: ignoring harassment and victimising those who complain can lead to significant awards, even if the claimants' own behaviour reduces the final figure.
Similar cases
Dental nurse's constructive dismissal and discrimination claims rejected by tribunal
A dental nurse who resigned after securing another job failed to prove she was constructively dismissed or that her employer discriminated against her. All claims were dismissed.
Constructive dismissal after flawed grievance process: DHL manager wins unfair dismissal claim
A warehouse first line manager with three years' service at DHL Services Limited resigned after a flawed grievance process. The tribunal upheld his claim for constructive unfair dismissal.
Constructive dismissal claims survive strike-out attempt: lessons for employers on trust and confidence
An experienced HR professional's claims of constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination will proceed to a full hearing after the tribunal refused to strike them out, though deposit orders were made.
Estate agent with Crohn's disease wins constructive dismissal and disability discrimination claim
An estate agent with Crohn's disease was constructively dismissed and discriminated against after her employer sidelined her due to her disability. The tribunal awarded £46,652.74.