Latest news with #victimisation
Daily Mail
5 days ago
- General
- Daily Mail
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.'
Telegraph
14-05-2025
- Health
- Telegraph
NHS trust in trans doctor tribunal fails to ban public from watching case
An NHS board has failed in its attempt to prevent the public from watching a tribunal about a trans doctor allowed to use a female hospital changing room. NHS Fife asked the judge overseeing the case brought by the nurse Sandie Peggie to remove public access to an online live stream of the employment tribunal's proceedings. The Telegraph disclosed last month that the board wanted to restrict 'virtual viewing' of the tribunal so that only journalists could watch it when it restarts in July. NHS Fife said the first stage of the tribunal was marred by 'technical issues and interruptions' from public observers watching online, which it said caused 'significant delays' to proceedings. But it is understood that Sandy Kemp, the tribunal judge, has ruled that the public should be allowed to watch the case, in line with the principles of open justice. He is also said to have rejected an application by NHS Fife to ban an open justice campaign group from posting live social media updates about the case on X. The health board accused Ms Peggie of misconduct after she challenged the presence of Dr Beth Upton, who is a trans woman, in a female changing room at Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy. In May last year, Ms Peggie submitted a formal claim to an employment tribunal against NHS Fife and Dr Upton for sexual harassment, belief discrimination and victimisation. The nurse complained of being required to share a single-sex space with someone she believed to be male and being victimised for holding a gender-critical belief that biological sex is immutable. The first part of the Peggie tribunal was held two months before the Supreme Court ruled in a separate case that access to female-only areas should be based on biological sex. This week, Ms Peggie welcomed the ruling and challenged NHS Fife to dump its policy of 'permitting any man who identifies as a woman access to female-only, single-sex spaces'. For Women Scotland, the feminist campaign group that won the Supreme Court case, said it was delighted that the tribunal judge had 'upheld the principles of open justice' by allowing the public to continue watching proceedings. Trina Budge, one of the group's directors, said: 'NHS Fife has behaved appallingly in seeking to have the remainder of this case heard behind closed doors. 'Yet another humiliation' 'They may well have good cause to be ashamed of how they have treated female staff, but it's vital this case plays out as it should in public. 'The details of how Sandie Peggie has been treated have shocked many women, and given the recent Supreme Court case ruling on single-sex spaces, there is much interest in seeing how this is resolved by the tribunal.' Tess White, the Scottish Tories shadow equalities minister, said: 'This is yet another humiliation for NHS Fife and a welcome victory for common sense. 'Given the huge public interest in this case, it was appalling the health board was hellbent on keeping the public in the dark from proceedings.' Last September, NHS Fife and Dr Upton sought an order to hold the tribunal in private and prevent the publication of the doctor's name, citing concerns about the medic's health and safety. This was rejected on the grounds that the issues involved were of legitimate public debate and that open justice must be upheld. A live stream of the tribunal, which started on Feb 3 this year, attracted huge numbers of public observers. But the viewing system that was used was similar to that in a conference call. This meant that those observers who failed to mute their computer's microphones or switch off their cameras could be seen and heard on a large screen that had been erected in the tribunal. Hearing behind closed doors In one example, a woman who logged in could be seen and heard drying her hair. The judge limited access to the live stream to accredited journalists for the final days. NHS Fife argued this temporary restriction on 'non-media observers' should be made permanent when the tribunal restarts on July 16. Following a hearing behind closed doors last month, the judge has now ruled the board's request would be too prohibitive and the public should be able to view the live stream when the tribunal resumes. It is understood he ruled errors in some of the tweets about the case from the Tribunal Tweets account did not justify banning it from providing further live coverage. Tribunal Tweets permission to live-tweet proceedings in Peggie vs NHS Fife & Dr Upton remains in place. The respondents' application was denied. The tribunal is scheduled to resume on 16 July 2025. — Tribunal Tweets (@tribunaltweets) May 14, 2025 An NHS Fife spokesman said: 'An approach was made by the tribunal for comment after a member of the public raised concerns about the accuracy of the live-tweeting from the Tribunal Tweets account during the earlier proceedings. 'Our legal representatives subsequently provided feedback to the tribunal and we accept today's decision.'
