Female law firm worker sued for victimisation after male colleague mentioned 'pretty privilege' and told her 'good girl'
A female law firm supervisor sued for victimisation after complaining about a male colleague discussing 'pretty privilege' - where better looking women are more likely to succeed.
Catherine Guinee reported Aaron Hodges to bosses for claiming that attractive women are more likely to secure contracts, an employment tribunal heard.
The 49-year-old also complained that he had said 'good girl' to her and his remarks led to him receiving a warning about the 'need to be careful about his use of language in the workplace'.
However, after Miss Guinee lost her job shortly afterwards she launched legal proceedings claiming the firm had failed to investigate her allegations properly.
Her claims were dismissed after the tribunal ruled that her employers had not ignored her complaint.
The hearing in central London was told Miss Guinee started working at Pogust Goodhead, a London-based law firm with over 500 staff members, in March 2023.
The firm set up a call centre for people to make claims relating to the diesel emissions scandal, with Miss Guinee - who suffers from multiple sclerosis - hired as a client services supervisor.
The hearing was told that shortly after she started she made the complaint to boss Urika Shrestha about colleague Mr Hodges.
Employment Judge Anthony Snelson said: 'We find that, probably very early on [Miss Guinee] did complain privately to her colleague about an exchange with Mr Hodges in which he had said 'good girl' to her and another in which the two had discussed 'pretty privilege', the notion that female candidates regarded as good-looking were more likely to secure training contracts than others seen as less attractive.
'We accept [Ms Shrestha's] evidence evidence that she spoke with Mr Hodges and reminded him of the need to be careful about his use of language in the workplace.'
The tribunal did find that Ms Shrestha did not tell Miss Guinee that she had had this conversation, however,
The tribunal heard that on April 11 - ahead of a meeting - she sent a message to her boss complaining about competition within the team.
She sent another message to the head of HR, saying: 'I have relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis. I do not need mind games, being messed around, being pulled one way and another.'
She then approached another line manager, clearly agitated, and started shouting that things were 'bullshit' and that she was being denied her access to certain reports because she was a woman.
When the meeting started, when a colleague was speaking, Miss Guinee started pointing and shouting at her, the hearing was told.
She again complained of 'bullshit' and called her a 'little girl', which shocked the other members of the team. She then called Mr Hodges 'adopted', 'scummy' and a 'money-grabber' and claimed Ms Shrestha was treating staff like 'slaves'.
Ms Guinee was then asked to go home and it was later agreed by colleagues that she should be fired as 'she did not meet the standards required for her role'.
She then sued for disability and sex discrimination as well as victimisation.
Regarding Mr Hodges' remarks, the tribunal said: 'We find that there was no 'failure' to follow up the complaint' and also ruled that her gender and MS had nothing to do with her being fired as no one involved knew of her illness.
EJ Snelson said: 'If, as we find, the decision to dismiss was taken at a time when the decision maker had no knowledge of the relevant medical condition, it follows that that condition cannot have been the reason, or a material reason, for the dismissal.
'It was common ground that at the time of dismissal [Miss Guinee] had taken no sick leave. She exhibited no symptoms in the workplace.
'The person who dismissed her was the very person who had interviewed and appointed her only a month earlier. The notion that he was disposed to discriminate against on her grounds of sex is entirely unsubstantiated.
'[Miss Guinee] was dismissed in accordance with her contract, under which [Pogust Goodhead] was at liberty to terminate on notice.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
10 minutes ago
- The Sun
Keep your home cobweb and pest-free this summer – a 35p household essential is key & it'll make your windows sparkle too
Abigail Wilson, Senior Digital Writer Published: Invalid Date, WITH summer fast approaching, if you want to ensure your home is cobweb and pest-free, you've come to the right place. Particularly if you plan on having guests over to relax in your garden any time soon and don't fancy being stared at by cobwebs all over your windows, then we've got just the thing. 4 4 4 4 And don't worry if your purse is feeling tighter than ever before, as thanks to this handy hack from experts at Cleanipedia, you may already have the two ingredients in your kitchen cupboard. Posting on social media, the pros at Cleanipedia, which is powered by Unilever, explained how two household essentials can be used to get rid of cobwebs and deter bugs from your home. Alongside a short clip shared on Instagram, the experts wrote: 'Keep spiders and bugs away from your windows with this easy trick!' Thanks to this hack, all you'll need is washing-up liquid and white vinegar. First things first, you'll need to nab a Dismatic and clean surfaces "using dish soap and white vinegar mix.' The experts claimed: 'This mix is also great if you want sparkling windows.' Following this, the pros advised: 'Spray white vinegar (or essential oils) all over to repel the bugs.' According to the experts, white vinegar acts as a natural repellent thanks to its strong scent. They acknowledged that ' pests can't stand it', as they added: 'Use it to keep them out of your home and push them back toward the garden bushes where they belong!' While the experts demonstrated this hack on windows, you can use this trick anywhere in your home where cobwebs and pests prove a nuisance. Nature's Defenses: Organic Solutions to Garden Pest Problems Not only will it make your pad shine, but it's super cost-effective, making it great for those on a budget. If you've run out of washing-up liquid and white vinegar, you'll be pleased to know that you can nab washing-up liquid for as little as 49p from Savers, while white vinegar will cost you just 35p from Sainsbury's. IF you want to ensure that your home is pest free this summer, here's what you need to know. Hornets and wasps - hate the smell of peppermint oil so spraying this liberally around your patio or balcony can help to keep them at bay. Moths - acidic household white vinegar is effective for deterring moths. Soak some kitchen roll in vinegar and leave it in your wardrobe as a deterrent. Flying ants - herbs and spices, such as cinnamon, mint, chilli pepper, black pepper, cayenne pepper, cloves, or garlic act as deterrents. Mosquitoes - plants, herbs and essential oil fragrances can help deter mozzies inside and out. Try eucalyptus, lavender and lemongrass. Cleaning enthusiasts beam The Instagram clip, which was posted under the username @ cleanipedia, has clearly left many open-mouthed, as it has quickly racked up 342,000 views. Not only this, but it's also amassed 1,347 likes and 31 comments. Social media users were impressed with the two-step hack and many eagerly rushed to the comments to express this. One person said: 'I will give this a try!' Another added: 'I need to do this.' At the same time, a third simply commented: 'Amazing.' Meanwhile, someone else asked: 'What essential oils can I use? Peppermint oil ok? To this, the pros at Cleanipedia wrote back and confirmed: 'Yes! You can use peppermint oil because it has a strong smell which insects don't like so they'll steer away from it and go somewhere else.'
The Independent
18 minutes ago
- The Independent
As Putin ramps up his summer offensive in Ukraine, will he succeed?
A peevish spokesman for Vladimir Putin bristled with indignation this week at Donald Trump 's description of Russia 's invasion of Ukraine as 'like kids fighting in the park'. It's not, Dmitry Peskov pouted, the conflict is an 'existential question' for Russia. 'This is a question of our security and the future of ourselves and our children, the future of our country,' continued Putin's spokesman who has grown more accustomed to preening with pleasure at the relentless assaults on Ukraine from the White House this year. He is right. Victory for Russia was once defined as regime change in Kyiv. But it really need only be a messed up Ukraine, unstable, violent and impoverished. Because a democratic Ukraine enjoying cultural renaissance, freedom, and economic growth with lots of Russian speakers shows Russia's population that there's an alternative to the kleptocratic autocracy they currently endure. As the summer fighting season gets underway in the fourth year of Putin's full scale invasion of its neighbour, Russia has clearly shifted its main effort to forever destabilising Ukraine. Kyiv, meanwhile, has demonstrated that it is no longer on the back foot, and that it is far from defeated. Indeed two years after its failed summer counter offensive, Kyiv is growing in strength and confidence. Ukraine doesn't have the capacity to drive Russia out of its lands this year. But it is hanging on and by next year may find it has the upper hand as European aid begins to come through to replace the military support that the US has withdrawn. Donald Trump has provided no new military support this year. About $3.85 billion remains unspent from previous allocations – after that… nothing. Russian forces have renewed their attacks around Pokrovsk and Kostyantynivka on the eastern front. The aim here is to try to encircle Ukrainian forces and cut the supply routes to Kramatorsk, the administrative headquarters of Ukrainian held Donetsk province which Russia has mostly captured – and illegally annexed. Ukrainian military sources on the ground have reported a massive increase in the range and efficacy of Russian fiberoptic guided drones with a range up to 15 miles unspooling a filament of optical cable directly connected to an operator on the ground. The guidance system makes them invulnerable to jamming equipment used by Ukraine. Elite Russian drone forces have been deployed from the Russian counter attacks to drive Kyiv's forces out of Kursk to the eastern front, they said. The results have been very small advances by Russian troops, at enormous cost. Nato estimates that around 950 Russians are being killed every day. Although casualty figures are rarely accurate, live video feeds show small numbers of Russian and Ukrainian troops scrabbling for cover and dodging drones in the dust and rubble of apocalyptic landscapes - which are now believed to be responsible for more than 70 per cent of casualties. Ukraine has repeatedly offered an unconditional 30-day ceasefire and face-to-face meetings between Volodymyr Zelensky and Putin. The US efforts to broker an armistice have gone nowhere while Russia is trying to capture more of Ukraine. Putin may have given up on regime change but he wants to take all of the territories Russia has illegally annexed – Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Luhansk and Donetsk, as well as hanging on to Crimea. If he manages this he may be able to convince European leaders that a peace along lines defined by the Kremlin is the least-bad outcome. This summer his main targets continue to be the central section of the eastern front but he is also driving hard on Ukraine's northern border with incursions and the capture of small border villages. This allows Moscow to add pressure on Kyiv – keeping the battle closer to Ukraine's centres of power by putting major cities, and regional capitals, like Sumy and Kharkiv under constant threat from artillery and short range rockets. Russia's wider air campaign has been drastically ramped up. More than 400 missiles and drones are now swarming Ukraine on an almost nightly basis with cruise and ballistic missiles getting through air defences in greater numbers because of a shortage of air defences – notably the US manufactured Patriot systems which are the most effective in downing Moscow's most dangerous long range weapons. On Saturday, the mayor of Kharkiv said citizens had faced the largest Russian bombardment of the city of the war, involving dozens of drones . 'Kharkiv is currently experiencing the most powerful attack since the start of the full-scale war,' Ihor Terekhov said on Telegram. But Nato has recently announced an extra €20 billion in military aid. Germany has said it will soon send Ukraine long-range bombs capable of striking deep into Russia. The UK has added £350 million in funding for 100,000 new drones and already delivered 144,000 rounds of artillery ammunition this year. Dutch defense minister Ruben Brekelmans said the Netherlands is giving €400 million euros including 100 naval vessels, including patrol boats, transport boats, interceptors, and special operations ships and more than 50 naval drones. Norway is stumping up $700 million in 'drone-aid' too. This shift to drone warfare has allowed Ukraine to regain initiative to offset the sheer mass of old-school military might that Russia has brought to bear. The 'meat grinder' assaults by Russian infantry have almost stopped. Ukrainian officers told The Independent that Russian artillery bombardments have fallen away as drones have easily tracked and destroyed the big guns of the traditional battlefield. And Ukraine's Operation Spiderweb, in which Kyiv claimed to have destroyed or damaged a third of Russia's strategic bombers along with some spy planes in a staggering long range long term operation that hit Russian airfields 5,000km apart, have greatly boosted morale. Along with ongoing long-range assaults with drones on Moscow's airports, its energy infrastructure, and commanders themselves, Ukraine has turned the tactics of hybrid warfare developed by Russia back on Putin. It is unlikely Ukraine will turn Trump back to outright support for the embattled democracy – he has gone too far in his public support for Putin to make that a credible ambition. But there are signs that America won't try to cripple Kyiv's war efforts as it has threatened to do. No wonder Putin's peeved.
Telegraph
24 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Why banks may no longer refund fraud victims
Lenders are lobbying for new fraud reimbursement rules to be watered down over fears scam victims are being told to lie to their banks. Since last October, companies which handle payments have been required to give victims of 'Authorised Push Payment' (APP) fraud their money back, up to a limit of £85,000. In the first three months, 86pc of money lost to the scams – approximately £27m – was reimbursed to consumers by 60 firms. The current rules mean that, other than a £100 'excess' which firms can remove from payments, the only reasons that customers can be denied a payout are if they've ignored warnings, failed to quickly notify their bank of the fraud, refused to share information about the scam or do not consent to a police report being made. But in meetings in May, banks demanded that requirements for victims to act reasonably – and not to lie to their bank – were made stronger. This would mean that customers could be denied refunds in more cases. The Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) will hold an independent review of the mandatory scheme in October, and will then recommend changes. Problems raised include the high reimbursement limit, compliance monitoring by which administers the scheme, and the limited number of exemptions for refusing payouts. Lenders also said they should be able to give clear warnings about lying to them, as victims are often guided to do by fraudsters. One bank told industry magazine The Banker that: 'The [consumer negligence] bar is set so high that in almost all these cases a customer can be incredibly reckless, can lie to their bank, can ignore warnings and still get their money back.' Riccardo Tordera, director of policy and government relations at The Payments Association (TPA), said: 'The PSR says just 2pc of claims are rejected on this basis yet acknowledges no clear shift in consumer behaviour. 'Meanwhile, the Financial Ombudsman Service and the PSR both apply a stricter definition of gross negligence than common law, which could make enforcement of reimbursement policies challenging in a British court.' Under the previous voluntary code – called the Contingent Reimbursement Model (CRM) – customers could be refused for ignoring warnings or failing to verify the payee. Now the test is much stricter. Reimbursement numbers never jumped above 75pc under the old scheme – compared to 86pc for the mandatory payouts. APP scams see victims convinced to move their money themselves, eventually into a 'safe' account controlled by the fraudsters, at which point it is lost. Ticket sale scams, such as those experienced by Oasis and Taylor Swift fans, are also considered APP frauds. At first glance, the implementation has gone well. The amount lost in APP frauds dropped by 2pc between 2023 and 2024, according to UK Finance, and the number of cases fell by a fifth. But £450.7m was still lost to fraudsters last year. But the scheme has not been without its critics. Before the scheme was implemented, some parts of the industry warned of the potential problems of moral hazard – which is when consumers are incentivised to lie – and that fraudsters would pose as victims. This, it was claimed, would drive a significant spike in claims. But these fears have not materialised. Originally, the reimbursement limit was set to £415,000 – with firms expected to pay out just days after claims were made. But lobbying saw the limit dropped to £85,000, the same as the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS), which protects money deposited with banks. Smaller and medium-sized payment companies had said that one large claim could wipe them out. David Geale, managing director of the Payment Services Regulator (PSR), which is responsible for the scheme, said in May that: 'While it is too early to draw firm conclusions based on the period covered by this data, we have not seen evidence of spikes in claim volumes that some had feared would occur under the policy.' Before the scheme was introduced, there was a voluntary code which most of the major banks were signed up to, run by the Lending Standards Board. Sources at the LSB said last year, before reimbursement was mandatory, that they had not seen fraudulent claims. Rocio Concha, director of policy and advocacy at Which?, said: 'Based on the available data from the PSR, the new mandatory scheme appears to be performing well, with more fraud victims getting their money back. 'Sections of the industry had tried – without producing any evidence – to claim that mandatory reimbursement would lead to consumers acting irresponsibly or even teaming up with criminals to con banks out of cash. This seemed ludicrous at the time and initial insights have borne that out.' Ms Concha added that while the number of cases were down, there was another worrying trend. She said: 'Latest industry figures suggest more victims are being tricked into sending money to bank accounts overseas controlled by fraudsters. That is concerning as these transfers aren't covered by the new mandatory reimbursement rules.' A spokesman for the PSR said: 'We have always been clear that we would have an independent review following the implementation of the policy. 'If we think there are key learnings or adjustments to make to our policy, we will consider those carefully before making any changes.'
