Nunn v Crouch Recovery
“Those messages were shocking so it must be harassment.”
Not quite, said the Employment Tribunal.
This week’s case shows how context can completely change the outcome of a harassment claim.
In Nunn v Crouch Recovery, an employee worked in a small family run business where the relationship with her manager became personal as well as professional. They messaged about private matters and she was treated more like a trusted confidante than a typical employee.
Over time, several incidents involved sexual language.
- A WhatsApp message using explicit terms about another employee.
- Comments from colleagues calling her eye candy and MILF.
- A text saying she was a belter when they first met.
She later brought a claim for sexual harassment.
Why the Tribunal rejected it.
The Tribunal accepted the language was vulgar and inappropriate for work. But that was not the legal test.
They found that:
- She joined in with office banter.
- She laughed at some of the comments.
- She did not object when they happened.
- She was willing to complain about other behaviour when it upset her.
These incidents were only raised much later, after the working relationship had broken down.
Looking at the whole picture, the Tribunal decided the conduct was not unwanted and did not create a hostile or degrading environment.
The Takeaway Points
Harassment is not judged by how shocking words look on paper. It is judged by how they were experienced at the time and by the dynamic between the people involved.
Would your workplace culture still look defensible if it appeared in a Tribunal judgment?
