A recent case ruled in favour of a female manager dismissed after raising concerns about sexist “banter” and an outdated workplace culture. The employer’s investigation? Biased, rushed, and based on hearsay.

The key points from this matter are:
Intent doesn’t override impact – Comments can be harassment even if “jokey”
Fair investigations are critical – Bias and assumptions undermine outcomes
Banter isn’t a free pass – Especially when it plays on gender stereotypes
Leadership sets the tone – Inclusion and respect start at the top

With new legal duty requiring employers to prevent harassment, now’s the time to act.

A recent Employment Tribunal case involving a senior female manager at an agricultural machinery distributor, Opico, has sent a powerful message to employers: “Tradition” is no excuse for outdated behaviour, poor investigations, or ignoring inclusion.

The tribunal ruled that the female claimant, Selkin, was unfairly dismissed, this following a flawed internal investigation. At the heart of the case were discriminatory comments, sexist banter, and an entrenched culture that failed to adapt to modern standards—all exacerbated by a lack of objectivity and due process.

The claimant was one of the few female managers in a male-dominated company. She endured inappropriate workplace conduct, including being called a “witch” in an internal email and being subjected to sexist “jokes” in the company WhatsApp group. Concerns she raised were dismissed or met with defensiveness.

When a male colleague overheard and misinterpreted a philosophical discussion Selkin had with coworkers, leadership responded by launching a hasty disciplinary process, without even speaking to key witnesses or exploring context. The company sided with the complainant, despite evidence contradicting his claims, and fired Selkin for alleged “unlawful harassment.”

So, what went wrong?

The Employment Tribunal found the employer:

• Conducted a biased and closed-minded investigation;
• Relied on hearsay and failed to properly test evidence;
• Disregarded the broader pattern of harassment Selkin had experienced;
• Accepted flawed recommendations without challenge;
• Ignored the impact of internal culture on behaviour and perceptions.

The Employment Tribunal concluded there was no reasonable basis for Selkin’s dismissal and they also confirmed she was subject to harassment related to her sex.

The tribunal noted “Tradition must not trump inclusion,”. “Old school mindsets” and “banter” are no defence when they cross the line into discrimination.

What Can Employers Learn?
‘Banter’ is no shield – Just because jokes were once tolerated doesn’t make them acceptable now. Context and power dynamics matter.

Intent is not impact – A comment that wasn’t meant to offend can still be unlawful harassment.

Investigations must be fair – Hear all sides, challenge assumptions, and don’t rush to judgment.

Cultural change starts at the top – Managers must set the tone and be accountable for how complaints are handled.

From October 2024, employers have a statutory duty to take proactive steps to prevent sexual harassment and failing to do so may significantly increase liability. One key way in which employers can aim to comply with this statutory duty is implementing a policy which details expectations and conduct meaningful training to all employees.

This case is a wake-up call and a reminder that employers must move beyond outdated attitudes, challenge biased processes, and foster environments where respect, inclusion and fairness are non-negotiable.

Please don’t wat for the Employment Tribunal to tell you where you went wrong.

Advo can help you in a few easy steps.

The team of experienced HR Consultants at Advo can support your business in providing advice in preventing harassment by drafting a bespoke policy for your business and delivering training to your employees.

Contact us now!