A woman who discovered male colleagues including her manager had placed bets on who would sleep with her first has lost her sexual harassment case despite a judge ruling the wager constituted harassment.
Molly Craigie’s tribunal claim against East Anglia Home Improvements was dismissed on technical grounds after the judge determined she had brought her complaint “out of time” under employment law rules, even though the betting behaviour was found to be “unwanted conduct of a sexual nature.”
The saleswoman joined the company in September 2022 in a role requiring her to visit potential customers to confirm contracts. Within two months of starting, she discovered two colleagues had “placed a wager between themselves as to who would sleep with me first,” a tribunal held in Watford heard.
Ms Craigie, who was in her early twenties at the time, told the hearing the betting occurred before her colleagues knew she was in a “long-term” and “committed” relationship. She stated the comment “stuck” with her “as it was the first time I felt my colleagues, one of which was a member of management, sexualised me and singled me out, all down to my sex.”
Employment Judge Rebecca Peer acknowledged “any such wager is unwanted conduct of a sexual nature” but noted there was no evidence Ms Craigie had “directly confronted anyone about the wager or sought further information or even tried to ascertain whether the information given by [her colleague] was true.”
The judge concluded the wager allegation was brought “out of time,” leading to dismissal of the sexual harassment complaints. Employment tribunals typically require harassment claims to be filed within three months of the alleged incident.
East Anglia Home Improvements, which describes itself as “the UK’s number one home improvement provider,” argued during proceedings that Ms Craigie was a self-employed contractor and therefore the tribunal had “no jurisdiction to entertain her claims.”
The tribunal also heard Ms Craigie was told she had been hired because “she would not intimidate elderly customers.” She left the business in June 2023 before launching her tribunal claim.
Whilst Ms Craigie lost the sexual harassment case, she succeeded in a claim for unpaid holiday pay. The tribunal ordered East Anglia Home Improvements to pay her £4,775, however the company has refused to hand over the money.
In a subsequent hearing, the business attempted to force Ms Craigie to pay £7,500 to cover their legal costs relating to the tribunal claim. The company’s legal representative told the tribunal Ms Craigie “from the outset has tried to manipulate the Tribunal into hearing a fanciful case.”
The representative claimed Ms Craigie was “prejudiced” because the business had decided not to pay the £4,775 tribunal award until its costs application was dealt with. The company also alleged she had made an anonymity application in bad faith.
The tribunal dismissed the £7,500 costs application, ruling East Anglia Home Improvements had submitted it too late. Judge Peer indicated the application would have failed regardless of timing.
Ms Craigie remains owed £4,775 in holiday pay that the tribunal ordered the company to pay. The business continues to withhold payment despite the tribunal ruling in her favour on this element of her claim.
The case demonstrates how strict time limits in employment law can result in dismissal of complaints even when judges find evidence of inappropriate workplace behaviour. The technical rejection of Ms Craigie’s sexual harassment claim stands despite the judge’s finding that the betting constituted unwanted conduct of a sexual nature.
