Victimisation after reporting sexual harassment: a teenager dismissed for speaking up
A 16-year-old front-of-house worker was dismissed three days after her mother confronted the manager about sexual harassment by a chef. The Manchester tribunal awarded £13,886 for victimisation.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was 16 years old and worked front-of-house at the New York Diner from January to June 2019.
- She was paid £3.40-£3.50 per hour, below the National Minimum Wage, and received no payslips or contract.
- The claimant reported sexual harassment by a chef (PX) to a colleague and later to her manager Ms Khan.
- The respondents fabricated a statement denying harassment and a backdated dismissal letter.
- The claimant was dismissed on 13 June 2019, three days after her mother confronted Ms Khan about the harassment.
- The tribunal found the respondents jointly victimised the claimant by dismissing her because of her protected act.
Timeline
-
Claimant applies for job
Claimant emails New York Diner via Indeed, indicating availability for work.
-
Claimant starts work
Claimant begins working front-of-house at New York Diner, aged 16.
-
Claimant reports sexual harassment
Claimant tells colleague ZA via SnapChat that chef PX has sexually harassed and assaulted her. ZA forwards the message to Mr Hussain.
-
Claimant texts Ms Khan about PX
Claimant sends Ms Khan a WhatsApp message complaining about PX's behaviour, including sexual conduct.
-
Aggressive customer incident
Claimant deals with an aggressive customer; she fetches PX for help. Police attend.
-
Claimant's mother contacts Ms Khan
Claimant tells her mother about the sexual harassment; mother calls Ms Khan to confront her.
-
Claimant dismissed
Ms Khan informs claimant's mother that claimant is dismissed for being 'not a good worker'. Claimant learns of dismissal after an exam.
-
Claimant sends grievance letter
Claimant writes to respondents raising grievance about dismissal, pay, and harassment.
-
Ms Khan's reply letter
Ms Khan replies, denying harassment, accusing claimant of lying, and referencing claimant's 'psychological problems'.
-
Claim presented to tribunal
Claimant presents her claim to the Employment Tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal was an act of victimisation because she had complained about sexual harassment, which is a protected act under the Equality Act 2010.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claim of victimisation, finding that the claimant was dismissed because she reported sexual harassment. The respondents' conduct — including fabricating a statement denying harassment and a backdated dismissal letter — demonstrated that the dismissal was a direct response to the protected act.
Compensation:
- Total award: £13,886.02
- This includes injury to feelings and financial losses (no breakdown provided).
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees with less than two years' service cannot claim ordinary unfair dismissal, but they can still bring discrimination or victimisation claims — and those have no minimum service requirement.
- Dismissing someone shortly after they raise a complaint about harassment is a classic red flag for victimisation, especially if the employer then creates false documents.
- Paying below the National Minimum Wage and failing to provide payslips or a contract can weaken an employer's credibility in tribunal.
- If you are a young worker experiencing harassment, reporting it to a manager or via a trusted adult is a protected act — even if you are not the one who makes the formal complaint.
This case shows how quickly an employer's attempt to cover up harassment can backfire. The claimant, a 16-year-old student working front-of-house at the New York Diner, reported sexual harassment by a chef to a colleague and later to her manager. Three days after her mother confronted the manager, she was dismissed for being 'not a good worker'. The tribunal found this timing no coincidence.
What the employer did wrong
The respondents not only dismissed the claimant but also tried to rewrite history. They fabricated a statement denying the harassment and backdated a dismissal letter. The tribunal described this as evidence of victimisation — the dismissal was because she had made a protected act. The employer also paid the claimant below the National Minimum Wage, gave no payslips or contract, and had no proper HR processes.
Why the result matters
This case is a reminder that victimisation claims do not require two years' service. Even a short-serving employee can bring a claim if they are subjected to a detriment — here, dismissal — because they did a protected act. The tribunal also noted the claimant's age and vulnerability, though the age discrimination claim was not upheld. For employers, the lesson is clear: retaliating against a worker who reports harassment is unlawful, and fabricating evidence makes the situation far worse.
Similar cases
Constructive dismissal after whistleblowing and disability harassment: a partial win for former employee
A former employee who resigned after being required to attend a disciplinary investigation meeting following protected disclosures has won claims for detriment, disability discrimination, harassment and victimisation, but her constructive unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. She was awarded £12,822.78.
HGV driver with 21 years' service wins constructive dismissal and disability discrimination claim against Asda
An HGV driver who resigned after Asda placed him in a capability process and failed to handle his grievance has been awarded over £163,000 for constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.
31-year employee made redundant: tribunal upholds fairness despite missed consultations
A tribunal has ruled that Wolseley UK Limited fairly dismissed a long-serving employee by reason of redundancy, rejecting claims of age discrimination, harassment, and victimisation.
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.