During the couple's affair, the PA was given a car, a flat in London's fashionable Belsize Park and went on holidays to Australia, Cuba and Mexico
A PA who was having an affair with her
boss and got sacked when her boss' wife found out has been awarded
nearly £35,000 in damages Photo: GEOFF PUGH
A personal assistant sacked from her job at a successful property company by
her boss after his wife found out about their affair has been awarded nearly
£35,000 in damages.
The woman was dismissed from her £40,000 job at the firm, which has a £2.6
billion portfolio, and was evicted from the flat in London's fashionable
Belsize Park that her chief executive lover had provided for her after the
couples affair emerged.
During their affair, the PA was also given a car and taken on holidays to
Australia, Cuba and Mexico.
The 32-year-old woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, said her sacking
left her suffering from depression and anxiety and too ill to look for a new
job.
She told the Central London Employment Tribunal: "In December 2010 he
told me his wife had received a letter from somebody telling her about our
relationship and about various details like the flat, and that we had gone
on holidays.
"After that he started asking me to leave. He said that his wife was
putting pressure on him to sever all ties with me and didn't know why I was
still working there if the relationship had finished."
Although they continued to sleep together he had become rude and dismissive in the office.
She wept as she said: "I did feel at certain times that if I didn't sleep with him then he would get very angry.
"There were times I felt if I didn't really have a choice in the relationship. I didn't know how I could break out without losing my job and my career, which I didn't want to do.
"His attitude was it was his company, he could do what he wanted and if staff members didn't like it 'they could f*** off,'."
He then offered her a £50,000 tax free redundancy package as his children would no longer speak to him because of his cheating, but she refused the offer.
Two months later in a phone call in February 2012 he told her she was sacked telling her "don't you f***ing come back".
During the hearing she said her lover routinely called female staff "slappers" and "tarts", had a preference for hiring pretty, blonde PAs and admin staff and had asked her to try and persuade an Australian blonde to have a threesome with them and in return he would sponsor her visa application.
The boss bought sex toys for colleagues as a "practical joke" and once put a sex aid in a woman's suitcase just before she went on holiday, the tribunal heard.
Even after his "distasteful behaviour" was exposed during the hearing he continued to bring sex toys into the office.
The PA sued the firm for unfair dismissal, harassment and sex discrimination and the tribunal ruled in favour of the PA's claim for unfair dismissal, although dismissing the sex discrimination charge.
Judge David Pearl awarded the PA £28,428.62 for loss of earnings and future loss of earnings, as well as £1,720 for unfair dismissal and £4,000 for harassment for shredding an appraisal, leading to a total of £34,195.21 including interest.
Deciding the level of compensation to award, Judge Pearl said he was satisfied the claimant's crippling depression, sleeplessness and low self-esteem had left her unable to look for work.
Mr Pearl said: "The claimant has by her own evidence and the additional medical evidence satisfied us that she has had moderate to severe depression at all times since her dismissal and that the symptoms have for much of that period been disabling.
"We consider that her evidence is genuine and that the doctors have made careful and documented diagnoses, the effect of which is that she has been unable to work.
"We do not consider she exaggerated her symptoms or sought to mislead us in order to enhance her compensation."
The judge decided not to take into account the culture of sexism in the office when awarding damages, saying it did not amount to harassment.
However he condemned the employer's "complete disregard for modern employment law" which puts him in line for "future litigation."
He said: "The claimant has found evidence that one of the practical jokes that we have referred to in the liability decision (putting sexual objects in the suitcase of an employee who was shortly to go on holiday) has occurred again in 2013.
"This appears to indicate that the respondent considers anything that the tribunal wrote about the culture of the firm in the last set of reasons can be completely ignored.
"We agree that it is very distasteful to see the same behaviour being repeated again."
Culled from The Telegraph
Although they continued to sleep together he had become rude and dismissive in the office.
She wept as she said: "I did feel at certain times that if I didn't sleep with him then he would get very angry.
"There were times I felt if I didn't really have a choice in the relationship. I didn't know how I could break out without losing my job and my career, which I didn't want to do.
"His attitude was it was his company, he could do what he wanted and if staff members didn't like it 'they could f*** off,'."
He then offered her a £50,000 tax free redundancy package as his children would no longer speak to him because of his cheating, but she refused the offer.
Two months later in a phone call in February 2012 he told her she was sacked telling her "don't you f***ing come back".
During the hearing she said her lover routinely called female staff "slappers" and "tarts", had a preference for hiring pretty, blonde PAs and admin staff and had asked her to try and persuade an Australian blonde to have a threesome with them and in return he would sponsor her visa application.
The boss bought sex toys for colleagues as a "practical joke" and once put a sex aid in a woman's suitcase just before she went on holiday, the tribunal heard.
Even after his "distasteful behaviour" was exposed during the hearing he continued to bring sex toys into the office.
The PA sued the firm for unfair dismissal, harassment and sex discrimination and the tribunal ruled in favour of the PA's claim for unfair dismissal, although dismissing the sex discrimination charge.
Judge David Pearl awarded the PA £28,428.62 for loss of earnings and future loss of earnings, as well as £1,720 for unfair dismissal and £4,000 for harassment for shredding an appraisal, leading to a total of £34,195.21 including interest.
Deciding the level of compensation to award, Judge Pearl said he was satisfied the claimant's crippling depression, sleeplessness and low self-esteem had left her unable to look for work.
Mr Pearl said: "The claimant has by her own evidence and the additional medical evidence satisfied us that she has had moderate to severe depression at all times since her dismissal and that the symptoms have for much of that period been disabling.
"We consider that her evidence is genuine and that the doctors have made careful and documented diagnoses, the effect of which is that she has been unable to work.
"We do not consider she exaggerated her symptoms or sought to mislead us in order to enhance her compensation."
The judge decided not to take into account the culture of sexism in the office when awarding damages, saying it did not amount to harassment.
However he condemned the employer's "complete disregard for modern employment law" which puts him in line for "future litigation."
He said: "The claimant has found evidence that one of the practical jokes that we have referred to in the liability decision (putting sexual objects in the suitcase of an employee who was shortly to go on holiday) has occurred again in 2013.
"This appears to indicate that the respondent considers anything that the tribunal wrote about the culture of the firm in the last set of reasons can be completely ignored.
"We agree that it is very distasteful to see the same behaviour being repeated again."
Culled from The Telegraph
No comments:
Post a Comment