Munchkins Restaurant Ltd and another v Karmazyn and others – Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT)
The Case
The four claimant waitresses had between one and five years' service each. They alleged that for some years each had been subject to persistent unwanted sexual harassment by the manager of their restaurant. They had put up with this harassment only because an assistant manager, also female, had acted as a "buffer" between them and the restaurant owner. This had made their jobs bearable for them.
However, the assistant manager became ill and left work. Within three months of this happening the four waitresses had all resigned in response to the harassment.
They brought claims of sex discrimination, harassment and constructive dismissal before the Employment Tribunal. The employees alleged that (i) their manager had constantly made comments of a sexual nature to them and had tried to engage them in discussions about sexual matters; (ii) that they were made to wear skirts which were too short; and (iii) that there had been books about sex, sexually explicit photographs and catalogues of sex toys and gadgets lying around the restaurant which their manager had showed them and asked them questions about.
Each claimant said that she had resigned in part or in consequence of the manager's behaviour. The Tribunal found the Respondents liable for discrimination, harassment and unfair dismissal. The Respondents appealed on the basis that the Tribunal's decision was insufficiently reasoned and therefore perverse.
The Decision
The EAT upheld the Tribunal's findings on liability, holding that there could have been no doubt that each of the legal requirements of sex discrimination and constructive dismissal had been met. It also upheld the decision that each employee should receive the same award of damages despite the fact that their respective lengths of service varied, and the employees had put up with "intolerable" conduct for a considerable length of time.
What Does It Mean For You?
The fact that employees may put up with conduct does not mean that it is not "unwanted" for the purposes of anti-harassment law. Employers should be aware that the mere fact that a situation has been in place for some time will not be enough in and of itself to refute an allegation of discrimination or harassment.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.