The ET held that a female employee suffered harassment related to sex as a result of her employer failing to provide a private room for her to express her breastmilk. The employee told the tribunal she was forced to express in the toilets or in her car. The tribunal found that this had the effect of creating an unwanted degrading or humiliating environment for the employee.

The other claims brought by the employee, being direct and indirect sex discrimination, were dismissed by the tribunal. The tribunal did not consider that the application of the Equality Act was relevant in this case as that was intended to protect women in the physical act of breastfeeding. Further, her claim for direct sex discrimination claim failed on the basis that the employee was unable to show that her treatment was due to her being a woman; rather the treatment was a result of the employer’s failure to provide suitable facilities which was due to administrative incompetence.

The indirect sex discrimination claim also failed. This was due to the provision, criterion or practice of not providing necessary facilities for expressing breastmilk did not place women at a particular disadvantage compared to men “as biological men have no interest in in the provision of facilities for expressing breastmilk” which referred to a previous judgement in which it was found that “indirect discrimination cannot be shown by bringing into the equation people who have no interest in the advantage or disadvantage in question”. The tribunal therefore reasoned that the provision, criterion or practice identified must be capable of being meaningfully applied to both men and women for a comparative disadvantage to occur.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/624d8ef9e90e072a014d5079/Ms_T_Mellor_v_The_MFG_Academies_Trust_-_1802133.2021_-_Reserved_Judgment.pdf

The government announced a new funding package for organisations in the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise sector which specialise in women’s wellbeing and reproductive health services.

Between 15-20 charities will be issued grants of between £200,000 and £600,000 by the end of 2025. The funding is aimed towards those who are experiencing the menopause, pregnancy loss and other reproductive and menstrual health conditions to ensure they are better supported to remain in the workforce.

The findings of a recent survey conducted by the Department of Health show that only a third of women are comfortable discussing health matters at work. Organisations that work to improve training and awareness schemes for small or medium sized enterprises (SMEs) are particularly encouraged to apply, as workplace support for these issues is less likely to be accessible in SMEs.

Sands, a UK charity for pregnancy and baby loss, has stated that giving funding like this to organisations that are experts could have a “huge impact” because often colleagues and managers do not know how to begin conversations around the subject, which is still often considered taboo.

The grant portal is due to close on 5^th August.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/grant-fund-launched-to-support-womens-reproductive-wellbeing-in-the-workplace

Following the claimant being reported for leaving a lipstick-stained facemask on her desk, (and other prior covid-19 breach informal warnings and one-way system rule breaches in addition to warnings for not working from home sufficiently), the claimant alleged that her male colleague had massaged her back and asked her if she wore stockings and suspenders. The claimant was off work on sickness absence leave 13 months after making the complaint of sexual harassment.

Despite the claimant admitting to the misconduct of breaching COVID rules, the complaint against her regarding the facemask on her desk was dropped when she made the allegations of sexual harassment against her colleague. The Employers investigation into the allegations revealed that the claimant had made her allegations in response to monetary issues, wanting a company car, the request to produce a sales report and the request for her to attend a disciplinary hearing for the above Covid breach. When the Employer cleared her male colleague of any wrongdoing in relation to the allegations of sexual harassment, she brought a claim in the tribunal for sex discrimination, harassment and victimisation.

However, the tribunal struck out the claimant’s claims after the judge concluded ‘she was annoyed that her covid breach had been raised and was potentially seeking to deflect the disciplinary action against her for the covid breach’. Additionally, ‘the claimant had not complained at all about her male colleague until she had been questioned about the mask, and did not raise her specific allegations until the disciplinary meeting itself, and she did not provide detail of the allegations in writing or otherwise despite being encouraged to do so.’ In conclusion ‘ her allegations were raised in response to being challenged about her own conduct on a matter which was entirely unrelated to her male colleague and raised in conjunction with her expressing general unhappiness about her working terms and conditions.’

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/628772a5e90e071f613221d6/Miss_N_Woolley_v_Interhaul_Pallett_Services_Ltd_1600923.2021_-_Reserved_Judgment_.pdf