An unflattering disciplinary process following an unwelcome compliment

Depending on who you speak to, employers these days are seen as either overly sensitive and prone to overreacting, or as acting swiftly and firmly whenever a serious allegation is made against an employee.

Carlos would tell you that, in his case, his employer definitely overreacted when he was fired for paying a female colleague a compliment, while two other workers who said the same thing faced no action.

He was dismissed after five years as a retail assistant with a high‑street electrical retailer for commenting that a female colleague’s uniform looked great on her.

When Carlos spoke to our Employee Support Centre for help challenging the decision, he explained why he felt the outcome was unfair and why he was so aggrieved.

Two female colleagues had said exactly the same thing, and they faced no action at all.

Our trade union representative, who supported Carlos through the disciplinary appeal process, reviewed the case with him and agreed that the decision to terminate his contract was unfair and unduly harsh based on the evidence.

Carlos, who had been suspended from work, faced an allegation of sexual harassment when he was invited to a disciplinary hearing.

He admitted making the comment from the start and told the fact‑finding meeting, held during the disciplinary investigation, that he did say the uniform looked great.

Furious Carlos insisted he had done nothing wrong because he heard two female colleagues say the same or similar, which they later confirmed in their witness statements, and he simply echoed what they said.

However, when Carlos was invited to the  disciplinary hearing, it became clear what the employer saw as the difference, and the aggravating factor, in his case.

In line with the ACAS Code, an employee must be given all of the evidence supporting any allegation before a disciplinary hearing takes place.

When Carlos received the complainant’s witness statement, she referred to the “creepy and leering look on his face” that made her feel uncomfortable and sexually harassed.

No other witness who heard the comment provided any evidence about his facial expression and they were not asked about it.

Carlos believed the allegation was ridiculous, so he did not exercise his right to be accompanied at the disciplinary hearing.

He attended on his own, confident he would be cleared of any wrongdoing. Being dismissed after the hearing therefore came as a complete shock.

Before speaking to us, Carlos submitted his own disciplinary appeal on the grounds of unfair dismissal and discrimination based on his sex. Our trade union representative then used these grounds to present the appeal on Carlos’s behalf.

At the appeal hearing, our representative was strong and clear that the decision to dismiss Carlos was grossly unfair and far too severe based on the evidence.

He highlighted that Carlos had openly admitted making the comment and had simply repeated what two female colleagues had already said. It was added that neither of those colleagues faced any action and that inconsistency alone raised serious concerns about fairness.

He also pointed out that treating the complainant’s description of a “creepy and leering look” as fact, and as the key difference in the case, meant a serious and damaging allegation had been upheld solely on one person’s interpretation, without any attempt to test or verify it.

This was explained as being completely at odds with ACAS guidance, which requires investigations to be thorough, fair, open‑minded and to look for evidence both for and against the employee.

The appeal hearing was further told that Carlos’s treatment could amount to sex discrimination. Two women made the same comment without consequence and as his sex appeared to influence the decision to dismiss him, it could be considered a breach of the Equality Act 2010.

Before the disciplinary hearing, Carlos told our representative he wanted to win his appeal and secure a settlement agreement rather than be reinstated.

Discussions and negotiations began after the appeal hearing and a settlement Carlos was delighted with was eventually agreed just over a week later.