Female IT boss on £90k-a-year who complained about ‘laddish’ workplace where male colleagues had Nerf gun wars in the office and threw ‘rubber chickens’ at each other loses claim for sex discrimination unfair dismissal
A female IT boss on £90,000 a year sued for sex discrimination after complaining her male colleagues had Nerf gun wars in the office and lobbed rubber chickens at one another.
Sarah Longman described a ‘laddish’ workplace culture where members of staff in the department she managed used the children’s toy blasters to fire foam pellets at each other.
Ms Longman, head of information systems, also complained they threw ‘rubber chickens’ at each other as part of a wider ‘sexist’ environment where her team regularly took part in ‘childlike’ and ‘immature’ pranks.
An employment tribunal heard she was late made redundant by property management firm HML Holdings Ltd, based in Richmond, after 13 years.
She tried to sue them for sex discrimination and unfair dismissal but lost after a female colleague said the behaviour was ‘not offensive to her as a female and simply amounted to minor workplace pranks’.
Sarah Longman complained about a ‘laddish’ workplace culture where members of staff in the department she managed threw ‘rubber chickens’ at each other as part of a wider ‘sexist’ environment where her team regularly took part in ‘childlike’ and ‘immature’ pranks.
Ms Longman, who worked at the company in Croydon, south London from 2007 until 2020, approached a manager in 2018 for his support on how to manage ‘difficult’ team members who were ‘childlike and immature’.
It was also heard that in 2018 concerns were raised about Ms Longman’s style of management and that although she was liked she did not have ‘the natural charisma of a leader’.
Ms Longman, who in 2019 earned £88,500 a year and had a bonus of £8,000, was placed on a course and complained to the coach there was a ‘very laddish culture’ in the office.
She was made redundant in July 2020, the tribunal heard.
A report by the Croydon tribunal said: ‘Much of Ms Longman’s case centres around the behaviour of the male members of staff…
‘She refers to this variously as ‘laddish’ behaviour, ‘childish’ behaviour and has dubbed them as being ‘the mates’ club’.
‘In essence, she is referring to boorish, offensive behaviour of a sexist nature to the exclusion of women.’
The tribunal heard male staff had ‘extensive discussions in the morning as to where they were going to go for lunch’, made ‘sexist’ comments about working from home when she was not in the office, and that there was a series of ‘childish pranks’.
Ms Longman claimed staff ‘threw rubber chickens at each other’, ‘fired Nerf guns in the office’, and ‘deliberately tapped on the wall between the two offices to annoy her’.
Ms Longman said staff also used the children’s toy blasters to fire foam pellets at each other. Pictured is an example of a similar toy
The report added: ‘One of the specific complaints raised by her as part of her sex discrimination claim is that there was in existence an instance messaging or WhatsApp group used by male members of her department which was used to make derogatory comments about her and from which she was excluded.
‘She expressly stated that she was worried because all of the IT department males were included and none of the females were and that it could therefore be perceived as exclusionary.’
At the tribunal, she argued ‘the allegations of laddish culture and undermining her are inextricably linked to her dismissal and so amounted to an ongoing state of affairs’.
However, Lesa Downes, who used to work in the IT department, said ‘she does not accept that a laddish culture existed or that she was treated any less favourably than anyone else because she was a woman’.
Ms Downes said ‘the behaviour that Ms Longman complains of was not derogatory and was not offensive to her as a female and simply amounted to minor workplace pranks’.
Employment Judge Philip Tsamados dismissed Ms Longman’s claims.
Judge Tsamados said: ‘We did find it surprising that she as Head of Department did not take any action directly to deal with the matters that she alleges were taking place on what appeared to be almost a daily basis or raise the matter with her seniors.’
The judge said the tribunal was ‘not completely convinced’ by her arguments.
The judge added: ‘Whilst the company viewed her as not being a good manager and having poor people skills and whilst the team was dysfunctional, she did not control or address their behaviour or even characterise it as discriminatory at the time.
‘However, she was not dismissed for those reasons… There is insufficient evidence of her sex being the reason why she was dismissed.’
Ms Longman successfully claimed for unpaid holidaypay and was awarded £1,013 in damages for breach of contract
Source: Read Full Article
