The Claimant was subjected to harassment and sexual harassment by a colleague. She raised a grievance and later resigned. She brought claims for constructive unfair dismissal, direct sex discrimination, harassment, sexual harassment, and victimisation. The ET upheld the core claims (other than victimisation), finding multiple repudiatory breaches of the implied term of trust and confidence, as well as discriminatory and harassing conduct for which the Respondent was liable. In an amended judgment, the ET applied a 35% Polkey reduction to unfair dismissal compensation and a 35% Chagger reduction to the claimant’s discrimination compensation, based on the possibility that the Claimant might have left her employment due to organisational restructuring, a reduced benefits package, and evidence that she was contemplating a move to the United Kingdom or external roles. The Claimant appealed the 35% deductions; and the Respondent cross appealed on jurisdiction, arguing that the sexual harassment claim was out of time and/or time should not have been extended.

The EAT allowed the Chagger appeal but dismissed the Polkey appeal and the cross appeal. On the Chagger appeal, the ET had failed to consider what would have happened had none of the discriminatory wrongs occurred, particularly whether the Claimant’s thoughts about leaving were affected by the harassment that she had been subjected to. The 35% deduction could not stand. On the cross appeal, the EAT held that the sexual harassment formed part of a continuing discriminatory state of affairs culminating in the grievance report, meaning that the claim for the sexual harassment was in time. The alternative finding that it was just and equitable to extend time was flawed, but was immaterial to the outcome given the finding on the continuing state of affairs.