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

Wellbeing pays: the ROI HR can’t ignore

9 October 2025

Skills

7 October 2025

How to build a skills-based strategy

A key challenge for organisations looking at their skills strategy is getting their job data under control. Discover how creating a single source of truth...

Artificial Intelligence, Globalisation

7 October 2025

Talent strategies for business expansion and growth

Global Expansion 2025: Powerful Talent Management Strategies for a Diverse and AI-Driven Workforce....

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

London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine – Human ResourcesSalary: £39,432 to £45,097 per annum (pro-rata) inclusive This provides summary information and comment on the

Harper Adams University – Human ResourcesSalary: £46,049 to £50,253 per annum. Grade 10 This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where

University of Cambridge – Department of Clinical NeurosciencesSalary: £27,319 to £31,236 This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal

Royal Conservatoire of ScotlandSalary: £52,074 to £58,611 This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases

Read the latest digital issue of theHRDIRECTOR for FREE

Read the latest digital issue of theHRDIRECTOR for FREE