Hello everyone, and welcome back to our Case of the Week update!

For those of you who don’t know me — I’m Kyle, one of the solicitors here at PJH Law. This week, we’re diving into a case expertly handled by none other than PJH Law’s Liam Pike. The case involves a harassment related to sex and unfair dismissal claim.

If you missed last week’s Case of the Week, where we explored the difference between contractual terms and the reality of a working relationship, you can find that update here. Now, let’s get into this week’s case!

As employment lawyers, we know firsthand that the press often misrepresents cases — sensationalizing and distorting the facts. This rang especially true for one of our clients, Ms. Selkin, in her successful claim for unfair dismissal and harassment on the grounds of sex. You can find the full judgment here.

If you followed the headlines, you might think this case had something to do with Meghan Markle or Jeremy Clarkson. Outlets like the Daily Mail and GB News certainly leaned into that angle — after all, clicks matter! Let’s set the record straight.

The Facts

Ms. Selkin was dismissed for gross misconduct, with one key issue involving a poster discussing male sterilisation. Context matters here — something the press glossed over.

The poster drew from the fallout of the 1971 US Supreme Court case Roe v Wade, which established constitutional protection for abortion rights. After Roe was overturned in 2021, internet memes circulated, highlighting the imbalance in discussions about reproductive rights — specifically how men’s reproductive responsibilities are rarely addressed.

Ms. Selkin displayed a poster with a provocative message: men should undergo early vasectomies, only reversing them when they prove maturity. This wasn’t a genuine call for forced sterilisation; it was a thought-provoking statement to challenge societal norms — a nuance lost on the tabloids.

It is important to highlight at this stage that Selkin repeatedly raised concerns about sexist remarks over the years, including comments made by two of Opico’s three directors. Despite this, the Respondent consistently failed to address these concerns. However, when a male employee lodged a complaint against Selkin, she was dismissed for gross misconduct.

The Tribunal identified several acts of harassment against Ms. Selkin, including:

  • Being referred to as a “witch” who should be left to “stir the cauldron.”
  • A dismissive remark: “Don’t spend too much, you’re not shopping for a dress” — made when Ms. Selkin was tasked with costing for a marketing trailer.
  • A heated exchange after a Director defended Jeremy Clarkson’s controversial statement about Meghan Markle, inspired by a Game of Thrones reference.

The Tribunal also noted the Respondent failed to challenge Ms. Selkin’s evidence.

Key Lessons for Employers

This case delivers a strong message about relying on one-stop-shop employment law consultants. The same consultants who oversaw the disciplinary process also represented the Respondent at Tribunal — creating an inherent conflict of interest. The Tribunal found that one consultant refused to overturn the dismissal on appeal because it would be “professionally embarrassing” for their colleague who conducted the original process. This flaw contributed to the finding of unfair dismissal.

Takeaway Points

Workplace memes aren’t harmless. In this digital age many memes circulate around work Whatsapp groups. If content circulating among colleagues creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment — particularly for women — the employer may be liable.

Prevention is key. Employers must implement effective anti-harassment training, policies, and procedures.

For more information on eLearning to prevent workplace harassment, contact phil@yogahr.co.uk. The first three emails received will get a copy of Philip’s upcoming book, Harassment and Bullying in the Workplace, published by Law Brief Publishing.

For further insights, Barrister Richard Wayman — who represented Ms. Selkin at Tribunal — has written a blog dissecting the case and how the press misinterpreted the judgment.

Thanks for tuning in — see you next week for another Case of the Week!

Testimonial from Ms Selkin 

“Liam Pike at PJH Law was outstanding as my solicitor — rigorous in preparation over a two-year period, level-headed, and deeply knowledgeable. His meticulous approach to preparing all the documentation, coupled with his ability to keep me focused on the details and his understanding of the legal process and law, ensured we were expertly prepared ahead of the Tribunal.”