Search

How can we help?

Icon

Ding dong, the tribunal bells will chime!

Following two months of persistent, unwanted attentions and a questionable redundancy to follow, Miss Majid successfully brought claims of sex discrimination and harassment, against her employer and her co-worker, and was awarded compensation accordingly.

Miss Majid attended a work interview at AA Solicitors. During this interview, the interviewer, Mr Ali, asked Miss Majid to marry him. In her following two months at the company Miss Majid was subjected to an alleged 40 or more further acts of sexual harassment. Such acts included Mr Ali rubbing and squeezing the Claimant’s hands, asking the Claimant whether she was ‘spoken for’ and suggesting a bed be put in one of the office rooms for them to share. Following a polite rejection of Mr Ali’s advances and informing him she had a boyfriend, Miss Majid was made redundant.

The case is a reminder to employers to ensure they take reasonable steps to prevent such behaviour occurring.

The Employment Tribunal ordered Mr Ali and AA Solicitors to pay Miss Majid over £20,000, which included £14,000 for injury to feelings and £4,000 of aggravated damages.  The amount of the award was appealed by the Respondents who considered this too harsh but their appeal was dismissed by the EAT.  The EAT surmised that the Claimant had been present in the office for Mr Ali’s “pleasure and gratification” rather than to work.

The case is a reminder to employers to ensure they take reasonable steps to prevent such behaviour occurring, including ensuring all staff (including those in positions of trust) are aware of the standards expected of them. It is also a reminder to employees that they can be pursued personally for discrimination claims, which can carry some hefty penalties!

For factsheets, checklists, letters and policies on discrimination and harassment please visit Employmentbuddy.com 

For advice on how to protect your organisation from discrimination claims, please contact our employment lawyers on employment@clarkslegal.com 

Disclaimer

This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

Author profile

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

Pub
  • 16 March 2026
  • Corporate and M&A

Shareholder Disputes: Managing Shareholder Buyouts and Exits – Episode 3

Join Stuart Mullins and Nicky Goringe Larkin for the third and final episode of our Shareholder Disputes series, where we move from prevention to resolution—exploring what happens when a founder’s exit becomes unavoidable.

art
  • 13 March 2026
  • Employment

When Immigration compliance becomes discrimination: The UK’s uncomfortable workplace balance

UK employers today operate under powerful, and some may say conflicting, legal pressures. On one hand, they must prevent illegal working under UK immigration laws.

art
  • 09 March 2026
  • Commercial Real Estate

Commercial Rent Deposits – A brief overview

A rent deposit is money provided by a tenant to its landlord as security for payment of the rent and performance of the tenant’s covenants contained in the lease.

art
  • 03 March 2026
  • Employment

International Women’s Day 2026 – Supporting equality and inclusion for a better, happier workforce

This year, International Women’s Day is inviting everyone to think differently about equality and how it can benefit everyone. The theme this year is ‘Give to Gain’.

art
  • 02 March 2026
  • Employment

10 facts an employer should know about holding personal data

Personal data is any information that can be used to identify an employee.

art
  • 27 February 2026
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

How (not!) to serve a winding up petition on a company using a default address

This case concerned an appeal by DG Resources Ltd (“DG”) on the basis that a winding up petition brought by HMRC (the “Petition”) was invalidly served.