- John Wellington was sued after making remark to sales assistant Audrey Pereira
Asking a woman why she wants to work is sex harassment, a tribunal has ruled.
An employment judge concluded that asking a female employee such a question is based on an ‘outdated idea’ that men are the ‘main breadwinners’.
The ruling came in the case of antiques dealer John Wellington who was sued after making the remark to female sales assistant Audrey Pereira.
An employer would ‘not even have thought’ to ask a male employee the same question, the tribunal concluded.
The jewellery specialist – who runs a shop in the historic town of Windsor – has been ordered to pay his former employee more than £55,000 in compensation after she successfully took him to an employment tribunal.
Employment Judge Kate Annand said the questions were ‘inherently sexist’ and made Ms Pereira feel she needed to ‘justify’ why she wanted to work.
She said: ‘The tribunal concluded that this did amount to “unwanted conduct” in that [Ms Pereira] found the questions to be intrusive and inappropriate.
‘The tribunal found it was unlikely that [Mr Wellington] would have asked a male who was seeking a role why they needed to work, why they needed to earn money, or asked them questions about their wife.
John Wellington was ordered to pay £55,000 to sales assistant Audrey Pereira over remarks he made after she started working at Wellington Antiques in Windsor (pictured)
‘The questions were inappropriate because they are based on an outdated idea that men are the main breadwinners in a house.
‘The tribunal accepted that these questions created a degrading environment for [Ms Pereira], and violated her dignity, in that she felt she had to justify her need and desire to work and felt she had to explain her financial situation when that was a personal matter.’
The tribunal, held in Reading, heard that Ms Pereira – who is of South Asian heritage – began working at Wellington Antiques in Windsor in October 2021.
The business advertises itself as a ‘a family run Antique shop’ selling furniture, coins and dolls to the ‘most exquisite antique jewellery’.
In November, Ms Pereira met with 40 year old Mr Wellington to give him her bank details but during the conversation her boss began asking her ‘personal and intrusive’ questions.
Mr Wellington wanted to know about her faith and why she wanted to work as well as about her husband.
He added that the business was ‘like family’ and she could ‘trust him’ because he was Catholic.
The next month Mr Wellington visited the antique shop to give her a basic term of employment.
Ms Pereira told the tribunal she ‘opened up’ to him about how hard it was to find work as an older Asian woman.
The businessman then said ‘blacks and gays have it worse’ which the sales assistant felt ‘invalidated’ her experiences.
The tribunal concluded that Mr Wellington’s questions about her motivations and family life were ‘unwanted conduct’.
However, on the ‘blacks and gays’ comment, the judge said it was ‘not intended’ to be a negative remark.
‘The tribunal found the phrase was ill judged but intended to express his view that the job market is more challenging for people who are black or homosexual and was not intended to be a negative comment about people who are black or homosexual.’
Ms Pereira was awarded £56,022.34 in compensation for sex harassment, unpaid wages, wrongful dismissal, and two complaints of victimisation for being put on garden leave and not being reinstated.
She lost her claims for race discrimination , sex discrimination and unfair dismissal.
