Telling a female colleague they look ‘nice’ could be sexual harassment

Telling a colleague they look “nice” could count as sexual harassment, a tribunal has ruled.

Marcus Hall, a senior lawyer, made such a comment to Megan Bratt, a legal secretary, at work, before asking her “Am I allowed to say that?”, a hearing was told.

The remark by the family law expert was found by the employment tribunal to be a sexual one which created an “intimidating” environment for Ms Bratt who described feeling “violated”.

She responded by telling the then 60-year-old he needed to be “careful”, referring to ex Manchester United footballer Mason Greenwood, who at the time had been accused of rape and controlling and coercive behaviour.

The tribunal heard that over the six weeks of her employment, senior partner Mr Hall discussed how his former girlfriend had cheated on him with a much younger policeman and had dating sites featuring lingerie-clad women on his device at work.

The legal secretary is now in line for compensation after successfully suing for sexual harassment.

Comments on appearance

The hearing was told Ms Bratt started work at Mr Hall’s firm JGQC in Lincoln on January 4 2022.

Within weeks, however, she started to complain about comments he made to her which she said made her feel “very uncomfortable”.

The tribunal heard Mr Hall told her he was single and “went into graphic detail about his ex partner who he said he caught cheating on him with a 22-year old police officer and described how he had found a used condom on the floor”.

Ms Bratt - who the hearing in Lincoln was told had had plastic surgery - also accused him of standing close to her and commenting on her appearance.

“One was in the kitchen on 2 February 2022 where [she] says Mr Hall leant against the wall with his arms folded and with a ‘creepy smile’ on his face commented that she looked nice and then asked if he was allowed to say it,” the tribunal heard.

“[Ms Bratt] says she found this violating (particularly in reference to the am I allowed to say it comment).

“She told him he needed to be careful about what he said and Ms Bratt then made reference to Mason Greenwood (a footballer who at that time was accused of attempted rape and controlling and coercive behaviour).

“[Ms Bratt] says Mr Hall in response stated, ‘yes, but he was a rapist’.”

The conversation made the legal secretary “freeze” and not “know what to say”, the tribunal heard.

Complaints not taken seriously

Two days later when helping Mr Hall install an app, the hearing was told Ms Bratt saw adverts from dating sites which showed images of women “dressed in lingerie in provocative poses on Mr Hall’s Facebook account”.

Two weeks later she was shown a video of Mr Hall’s girlfriend bent forwards in a skirt blowing a kiss.

Ms Bratt resigned on February 21 saying she did not feel “safe” at work.

She launched a grievance but the tribunal found that it was not conducted fairly as fellow staff who had worked with Mr Hall for more than 30 years did not take her complaints seriously.

The panel highlighted how one female colleague, Justine Fletcher, had made a “personal attack” on “Love Island reject” Ms Bratt, accusing her of “flaunting” herself on social media, appearing in “a shocking state of attire” and attending the office like she was dressed for a night out.

Another colleague, Shona Nelson, said she was “faked up with fake tan and false eyelashes” and claimed her social media was “a lot more revealing in her own photos than what was in the videos and pictures shown by Mr Hall”.

The firm claimed at the tribunal that Mr Hall’s behaviour was just “office banter” and that Ms Bratt had made the complaints because she was making mistakes at work.

Unwanted conduct of a sexual nature

The panel upheld her claim of sexual harassment based on a number of the incidents she complained about.

The tribunal said that while Ms Bratt felt Mr Hall telling her she looked nice was “unwanted conduct”, on its own it did not breach employment laws.

However, it did conclude that it was among a number of the incidents that amounted to “unwanted conduct of a sexual nature”.

“We find Ms Bratt felt it was uninvited conduct and we find it was of a sexual nature,” the tribunal said.

“We find it must have had the effect of creating the requisite intimidating or offensive environment for her especially because she refers to someone who was being investigated at that time about serious allegations about rape and controlling and coercive behaviour.”

The tribunal was heavily critical of the firm’s response to her complaints.

“We are troubled that the way Ms Bratt chooses to dress or what she chooses to post on her social media is advanced as evidence of Ms Bratt not possibly being able to be offended, upset or made to feel uncomfortable or intimidated by the things we have found Mr Hall did say and do.

“The notion that the way someone chooses to dress means they cannot possibly take offence or be upset or offended by the matters Ms Bratt raised in the grievance is troubling particularly in a legal practice.

“The personal comments made in this regard about Ms Bratt by [the firm’s] witnesses when investigating her grievances are wholly inappropriate and offensive.”

Ms Bratt’s compensation will be decided at a later date.

Charges against Greenwood were dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service in February 2023.