Telling a female colleague that she dresses conservatively compared to her co-workers could be heard as a ‘slur’ and get you fired for sexual harassment, a tribunal has ruled.
Describing a colleague as ‘conservative’ could be interpreted as ‘frumpy’ and a male employee who makes such a remark is guilty of ‘objectifying’ his co-worker, the employment judge explained.
The ruling came in the case of Jessie Danquah, a business consultant at Shell, who told Naima Masud on a work night out that she was ‘conservative compared to other woman at the social who have their boobs out’.
Mr Danquah claimed that his comment was ‘objectively true’, however, employment Judge Adam Leith said the comment was ‘objectively inappropriate’ and likely to be a breach of workplace equality laws.
Judge Leith told the tribunal in Croydon, London: ‘It was objectively capable of having the effect of violating Ms Masud’s dignity, and creating a degrading and humiliating environment for her.
‘That was two-fold – firstly, his comments comparing Ms Masud to other colleagues suggested a degree of objectification of other female colleagues.
‘And secondly, we consider that it would have been objectively reasonable for the recipient of the comment describing Ms Masud as ‘conservative’ and contrasting her with other female colleagues would hear that as a slur.
‘When [he] used the word “conservative”, that could, objectively speaking, be heard as “frumpy” or any number of other adjectives that could reasonably be regarded as somewhat less than complimentary.
‘It does not matter that that was not what [he] intended, since the test for harassment looks at either purpose or effect.’
Mr Danquah began working as a business consultant for FDM group, a business support services supplier in April 2022 and in August was sent on placement to Shell.
The following month, he went to a work social organised by the oil and gas giant at Bar Elba, a cocktail bar in London.
The hearing was told that during the evening he made a series of alleged comments to Ms Masud including telling her: ‘I didn’t expect people like you to be out that late’.
‘When asked what he meant, he responded “Muslim girls”,’ the tribunal heard.
Mr Danquah admitted the ‘conservative’ remark, telling the tribunal it was ‘intending to affirm my belief that she carried herself modestly’.
A few days after this incident, Ms Masud told Mr Danquah that she thought his behaviour had been ‘unprofessional’ and that his comments about her being conservative were ‘inappropriate’.
He denied acting unprofessionally, and responded ‘You are conservative compared to other women at the social who have their boobs out’.
Ms Masud reported the remarks to HR and when Mr Danquah found out he sent an email saying he would ‘voluntarily suspend’ his own work with Shell and FDM.
Later that month he was suspended.
In an investigation meeting Mr Danquah apologised for the ‘conservative’ remark but said ‘It’s objectively true on how someone dresses and it wasn’t meant to demean her’.
Bosses decided that he wouldn’t return to his placement at Shell.
Following this, he was found to have been ‘aggressive’ or even ‘bullying’ towards Ms Masud as he emailed her about his intention to sue her for defamation, copying in various other employees.
He also ‘indicated that if Ms Masud did not acknowledge receipt of his letter before claim within less than 24 hours, he would message all of her managers and colleagues with details of the investigation’.
In November, he attended a disciplinary meeting in which it was found that this email was ‘gross misconduct’. He was subsequently fired.
Mr Danquah was separately told that his ‘conservative’ comment was a breach of the ‘Bullying and Harassment policy and was associated with Ms Masud’s sex, religion and belief’.
He then sued FDM for race, sex and belief discrimination claiming that he held a ‘philosophical belief in modesty’.
Dismissing his claims, EJ Leith said: ‘Based on the evidence before us, we are not satisfied that [Mr Danquah] genuinely held the belief he professed to believe at the relevant times.
‘He may hold the belief now; the belief may even have developed as a result of his view of the events of September to December 2022.
‘But there is simply no evidence before us on which we can be satisfied that he genuinely held a cogent philosophical belief at the relevant times.’