Internal Investigation Justified and Romanticised Boss’ Actions Towards Sexually Harassed British Council Worker

In KJ v British Council, a sexually harassed British Council worker succeeded with her constructive unfair dismissal and discrimination claims. This comes after it was found that the employer had failed to sufficiently handle the worker’s complaints. Below, we examine what transpired and outline the employment tribunal’s judgment.

If you have faced unfair dismissal, discrimination, or sexual harassment, get in touch with Redmans Solicitors now. As employment law specialists, we can answer your queries, offer expert advice, and help advance your claim if you’re eligible.

To find out more:

The Facts in KJ v British Council

Background of the Sexually Harassed British Council Worker

KJ (“The Claimant”) began working for the British Council (“The Respondent”) on 1 January 2011. By the time she resigned on 22 November 2021, she held the position of Teaching Centre Cluster Lead in Maghreb, Morocco.

In roughly August 2019, Tony Reilly was assigned as the Country Director for Morocco. This was the respondent’s highest-ranking position in the country, making Mr Reilly the primary representative there.

When the Covid-19 pandemic hit, like many countries, Morocco was placed under strict lockdown restrictions. For many of the claimant’s colleagues, this meant a return back to the UK. However, she was obligated to remain as her role was considered “business critical”.

Unfortunately, in April 2020, the British Council worker in Morocco learned that her father was seriously ill. Sadly, he passed away just two months later. 

During this period, Mr Reilly was also tasked with remaining in Morocco and offered his support to the claimant. He used his contacts and arranged for her temporary return to the UK till September.

Claimant Faces Unwelcome Conduct

Prior to these family difficulties, the claimant described her relationship with Mr Reilly as “platonic and entirely professional”. However, things soon changed upon her return to Morocco.

In October, Mr Reilly began making inappropriate and flirtatious comments toward the claimant. He would send her unsolicited messages and make unwelcome sexual advances. This conduct continued through November, and on 13 of that month, he messaged her saying, “decided to drive to yours hovered outside wondering whether to call”.

Despite the sexually harassed British Council worker making it clear to Mr Reilly that his conduct was unwanted, he didn’t stop. On 2 December, he left flowers inside the claimant’s garage. When she discovered them, she had the life terrified out of her as she had no idea how he’d got in. 

Then, on 11 December, he showed up at a bar he knew the claimant was at with her friends. At 8 pm, he messaged her saying, “Sorry. I shouldn’t have come. Just wanted to see you x”. By the night’s end, he sent her a final message, “How I wish I could wrap my arms around you now”.

Three days later, following her line manager’s advice, the claimant emailed Mr Reilly, clearly setting out that she didn’t want anything to happen between them. She also emailed his line manager, Elizabeth White, who replied that she’d told him his behaviour was unacceptable.

Ms White reassured the British Council worker in Morocco that this would “be the end of it”, and Mr Rielly contacted her to apologise. At the time, the claimant felt relieved, believing the matter to be resolved.

Sexually Harassed British Council Worker Raises Formal Grievance

However, the relief soon disappeared for the sexually harassed British Council worker. Over Christmas, Mr Reilly requested to meet with the claimant, stating that he didn’t want to be alone. This prompted the claimant again to report his conduct to his manager on 22 December. But when Ms White replied, she only committed to calling him daily to check in on his wellbeing.

Messages continued through the new year, and despite the claimant blocking Mr Reilly on WhatsApp in February 2021, he continued to contact her via Microsoft Teams. On one occasion, he messaged, “I don’t understand why we can’t be friends”.

From the initial complaints reported in December until 15 June 2021, no action was taken against Mr Reilly. Yet, when the claimant’s friend told her he’d been involved in similar incidents when he was posted in Sri Lanka, she decided to raise a formal grievance. This occurred on 23 June, when she made allegations of misconduct, including physical touching and unwanted sexual advances.

Mr Reilly is Dismissed, Then Reinstated

Subsequently, the respondent’s Speak Up Committee (SUC) was notified on 16 July, and a meeting was held on 27. During this meeting, it was noted that historical allegations of a similar nature had been made against Mr Reilly elsewhere.

An investigation took place over the following months, leading to a final report published on 22 October. It detailed that there wasn’t any evidence of unwanted sexual advances but did find evidence of physical touching and stalking. This was submitted to the SUC on 26 October, who outlined their findings the following month.

In the SUC’s view, Mr Reilly was guilty of harassment but not sexual harassment. They explained, “Both parties have admitted that they were either exploring a romantic relationship or were being flirtatious with the other… Tony was also exploring the boundaries of their relationship”.

The sexually harassed British Council worker wasn’t happy with the outcome and raised concerns with the respondent’s HR on 17 November. Five days later, she resigned and cited the grievance’s outcome as the “final straw”.

On 6 January 2022, the claimant commenced ACAS early conciliation. After obtaining a certificate, she presented her claims to an employment tribunal on 17 February.

The following month, on 29 March, Mr Reilly attended a disciplinary hearing, which resulted in his subsequent dismissal. However, after appealing the decision, he was reinstated on 28 June with a final written warning.

The Employment Tribual’s Judgment

After the proceedings concluded, the employment tribunal ruled that Tony Reilly had sexually harassed KJ. They also held that the respondent was vicariously liable for his actions.

In their reasoning, the tribunal explained that the SUC’s investigation was flawed, effectively placing responsibility on the claimant for Mr Reilly’s conduct. Furthermore, they found that the respondent was not proactive in safeguarding the claimant’s welfare or preventing Mr Reilly’s actions.

The tribunal noted that the “excessive and unreasonable delay in dealing with the claimant’s grievance” caused her distress. They also described the respondent’s conclusions on the matter as “inexplicable and entirely unsustainable” and “internally contradictory.”

As a result, the claims of constructive unfair dismissal, sex discrimination, harassment, and sexual harassment succeeded. A preliminary hearing was then arranged to discuss the remedy, and we await further information.

If you have any questions or believe you’ve experienced something similar, contact us today. We can answer your questions and discuss your possible next steps after a quick chat.

Begin your journey with us now by: