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.’