A former British Council worker has won her case of unfair dismissal, harassment and discrimination in the employment tribunal after having been sexually harassed and stalked by the Country Director Morocco, Tony Reilly OBE, the most senior employee in the organisation in the country.
The employee (who shall be referred to as KJ due to the allegations being captured by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and therefore subject to a restricted reporting order) was represented by South West law firm Stephens Scown LLP. She raised concerns about Mr Reilly’s behaviour but was let down by her employer in a series of unjustifiable denials and attempts to cover up evidence.
KJ resigned from her role as Teaching Centre Cluster Lead in Morocco after an investigation into a grievance she had raised concluded that Mr Reilly had behaved inappropriately, but hadn’t committed sexual harassment.
This was despite overwhelming evidence of Reilly touching her without consent, following her to places where he knew she would be present, including her home, breaking into her house, and sending messages and images on WhatsApp expressing intimate thoughts. The individual responsible for this conduct was twice KJ’s age and the most senior employee for the British Council in Morocco, with overall responsibility for KJ’s welfare.
KJ said, “What I experienced at the British Council, both the sexual harassment itself and, when I reported it, the organisation’s deeply flawed response, changed my life irrevocably.
The Tribunal’s judgment provides some relief in its condemnation of the British Council’s handling of my complaints. It does not reverse the profound impact that this experience and the long wait for justice have had on my personal life, professional life, and mental health. I hope, however, that it will go some way to preventing and protecting others from similar mistreatment.”
Finding in favour of the claimant, the Tribunal were scathing in their Judgment of the British Council’s handling of KJ’s concerns and criticising the predatory actions of the Country Director. They found that KJ had made it clear that she did not want to be subject of the advances to which she’d been subjected, and that the British Council supressed material information to dismiss her complaint of sexual harassment. It had also failed to put adequate safeguards in place for her, resulting in her having to move house, all while prioritising the Country Director’s welfare over KJ’s.
The Tribunal found the British Council to be, “fundamentally deceptive”, “not sustainable or credible (in their evidence)”, and to have, “a reticence to uphold findings of sexual harassment in the face of compelling evidence.”
It added that, “the most troubling aspect of the decision for the Tribunal is that it implies that a woman who engages in flirting at a point in time gives consent to be harassed, stalked, and assaulted until such time as she withdraws her consent in writing.”, referring to an email KJ had written to Reilly asking him to stop his behaviour after attempts to communicate this message in person and via WhatsApp had failed.
Joe Nicholls, Partner in Stephens Scown’s Employment team, represented KJ throughout the legal proceedings along with Carrianne Matta, Associate Solicitor and their team. They provided advice and support to KJ throughout, focusing the dispute on the wrongdoing from Mr Reilly and those that investigated KJ’s concerns at the British Council. Chris Milsom of Cloisters Chambers was instructed by Stephens Scown as the barrister providing advocacy representation in the case.
Speaking about the result, Joe Nicholls said, “We are pleased with the Tribunal’s decision and recognition of our client’s experience, both from the unwanted advances of a senior, male colleague who was responsible for her welfare, and of the British Council whose investigation was found to be seriously flawed.”
“This ruling should send a clear signal that allegations of sexual harassment need to be taken seriously and thoroughly, objectively and independently investigated, ensuring that the complainant is adequately supported. We hope that this case will serve as an example to others and that we will do all we can to support others who may feel that their own experience has been inadequately addressed or dismissed.”
Following the Tribunal’s ruling, the case has been listed for a two-stage remedy hearing scheduled for December 2024 and March 2025 which will determine the value of the case. An appeal has also been lodged against the Tribunal’s decision to reduce the overall award.
The full Tribunal decision can be viewed at the Government website.