An employee who referred to “discrimination” without specifically referring to sex discrimination was not protected from victimisation

Mrs Chalmers, who worked in Human Resources, was one of two women employed by Airpoint Ltd. She raised a grievance to and about her manager, part of which read: “I do not find you approachable of late, your manner is aggressive and unhelpful. As such I prefer to have a written record of work instructions. My work is mostly ignored and I have been excluded from both the Christmas night out and from the hardware refresh, neither of which is acceptable to me and both of which may be discriminatory.”
Justice

Mrs Chalmers, who worked in Human Resources, was one of two women employed by Airpoint Ltd. She raised a grievance to and about her manager, part of which read:

“I do not find you approachable of late, your manner is aggressive and unhelpful. As such I prefer to have a written record of work instructions. My work is mostly ignored and I have been excluded from both the Christmas night out and from the hardware refresh, neither of which is acceptable to me and both of which may be discriminatory.”

Her grievance was not upheld, and she later brought claims of sex discrimination, including a claim that she had been victimised for having raised the grievance. Key to whether or not her victimisation claim was successful was the question of whether or not her grievance had disclosed a complaint or allegation that Mrs Chalmers had been discriminated against on the grounds of sex. If it had done so, the grievance would have been a protected act, and she would have been protected against victimisation.

The tribunal did not consider the grievance had included any complaint or allegation that discrimination legislation had been breached.

The factual context of this claim – including Mrs Chalmers’ HR background and education – meant that the tribunal was entitled to find that her ambiguous wording did not amount to a complaint of sex discrimination. Employers should usually treat any mention of discrimination by an employee as a red flag and ensure they do not treat the employee detrimentally as a result.

Read more

Latest News

Read More

Revealed – unbelievable real workplace safety fails

3 July 2025

Newsletter

Receive the latest HR news and strategic content

Please note, as per the GDPR Legislation, we need to ensure you are ‘Opted In’ to receive updates from ‘theHRDIRECTOR’. We will NEVER sell, rent, share or give away your data to third parties. We only use it to send information about our products and updates within the HR space To see our Privacy Policy – click here

Latest HR Jobs

University of Bath – Human ResourcesSalary: £24,344 to £25,733 pro rata per annum, Grade 4 This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas

University of Strathclyde – Professional Services – Human Resources DirectorateSalary: £59,139 to £66,537 This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where

University of Strathclyde – Professional Services (Continuous Improvement, Estates, Finance, HR) – Human Resources DirectorateSalary: £37,174 to £45,413 This provides summary information and comment on

You will lead HR Business Partnering, OD, and Learning & Development, and also oversee HR related managed services. You may already be an HR Director

Read the latest digital issue of theHRDIRECTOR for FREE

Read the latest digital issue of theHRDIRECTOR for FREE