Bringing or defending a claim at an Employment Tribunal is often a stressful time, in which two sides argue over a serious accusation. But what about the cases which involve a slightly ‘sillier’ topic?
Outlined below are some of Employment Law’s strangest cases, and how these claims turned out when put in front of a tribunal Judge.
Telling an employee to ‘grow up’
This first claim was heard in March 2023 against the London Hippodrome Casino.
The employee, Miss Mariotti, argued with a younger colleague about clearing away a glass. On hearing this argument, a bar supervisor told Miss Mariotti that she should “grow up” and stop quarrelling . Whilst this comment may have seemed harmless enough at the time, Miss Mariotti went on to claim that this amounted to age discrimination.
Under section 5 of the 2010 Equality Act (EQA), age is a protected characteristic. This means that if an employer treats an individual less favourably than they would treat others due to their age, this will amount to direct discrimination; section 13 of the EQA highlights this
In his judgment, Judge Goodman ruled that the comment did not amount to direct discrimination. He stated that it is commonplace to condemn “quarrelsome and impulsive behaviour”, and that telling Miss Mariotti to “grow up” did not constitute less favourable treatment because of her age; it was simply telling her that she should behave better.
Flatulence amounts to age discrimination
You might be asking yourself ‘how could breaking wind possibly amount to age discrimination?’ This 2024 claim against Birmingham City Council provides the answer.
The employee, who was granted anonymity by the tribunal, had been eating lunch when his older colleague passed wind on him and “found it amusing”. After complaining about the incident, their colleague told him that he “had a lot to say for a newcomer” and that he should be careful how he speaks to him as he is “only a trainee”, and he could easily get rid of him. The employee therefore argued that this amounted to direct discrimination on the grounds of age.
Once again, under s13 of the Equality Act Judge Camp (a Birmingham judge) found that the colleague had been treating the employee less favourably than he would have treated others due to his age; he then went on to say that the comments made by the colleague fell “outside the realms of acceptable workplace banter”. As this was clearly not an instance where the employer could argue the poor treatment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, the claim of direct age discrimination succeeded.
The takeaway from this case? Maybe don’t pass wind at colleagues!
The tarantula prank that went wrong
In an interesting 2023 case, the employee brought a claim of unfair and wrongful dismissal against his employer. The reason for his dismissal? Some poorly thought-through workplace pranks.
The employee, Mr Richardson, had been employed by West Midlands Trains as a train driver since 2018. During his employment he learned that a colleague, who is referred to as ‘Driver A’ throughout the judgement, was afraid of spiders and/or insects. After this conversation, Mr Richardson decided to play a prank on Driver A by leaving the exoskeleton of a tarantula in her pigeonhole at work. Driver A was not impressed by this prank and asked another colleague to remove it for her.
Some time later, the employee decided to place a shed snake skin in the same colleague’s pigeonhole. Upon finding this, she reported the incident to her line manager, where she described how she felt “intimidated, bullied [and] harassed”.
Following this, the employer started the disciplinary process against Mr Richardson; this ultimately resulted in the employee being dismissed for gross misconduct without notice.
Judge Hunt noted several issues with the way in which West Midlands Trains had handled the disciplinary process; this included a failure to attempt informal resolution and forgetting to pass a written apology from the Claimant to Driver A.
Amusingly, Judge Hunt wished to prove that pranks were a “common and well-understood phenomenon”; Mr Richardson ultimately won both claims of unfair and wrongful dismissal against his employer.
Conclusion
Overall, bringing a claim at an Employment Tribunal is undoubtedly a daunting experience. This article has delved into some of the strangest claims brought before a Judge, and how they fared at trial. We hope it amused!
Image used under CC courtesy of Patrick Begbie