The Claimant was dismissed after raising a grievance that was written on West Yorkshire Police notepaper. The statement was headed ‘West Yorkshire Police’ and made reference to criminal statutes and rules of procedure The Claimant argued that this was because his son, who was a police officer, had helped to prepare his statement. The Respondent maintained that it was intended as a form of threat and intimidation towards the management investigating an employment issue. The company also considered it was meant to purposely mislead the company that this employment issue had been reported to the police as a crime. Despite the Respondent agreeing to defer a decision pending the outcome of the West Yorkshire Police investigations, the Claimant was dismissed 2 days later. The Claimant also claimed that unwanted language directed towards him constituted age and sex discrimination. The Claimant won his claims of unfair dismissal and sex discrimination and the Respondent appealed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. The ET’s conclusions to the effect that the Claimant had been harassed in relation to his sex, and unfairly and wrongfully dismissed, had displayed no error of law, including perversity. All three grounds of appeal which had been permitted to proceed to a full hearing were dismissed. In relation to ground 1, the Respondents’ submission that, in order for unwanted conduct to relate to sex, it must relate to a matter which is both inherent in the gender in question and in no-one of the opposite gender was not rooted in authority and ran contrary to the purpose of section 26 of the Equality Act 2010.