A recruiter who claimed she was unfairly forced out of her job for discussing her “gold star” sex life at work has lost a legal claim against her former employer.
Charlotte Tilley sued Gravitas Recruitment Group for sex discrimination, victimisation and unauthorised deduction from wages over her treatment, claiming she was hounded out.
Ms Tilley had been accused of making colleagues “feel uncomfortable by frequently hugging them from behind”, viewing “inappropriate imagery during working hours” and making “inappropriate comments” to her co-workers. She was also accused of making graphic comments about her sex life.
According to court documents Ms Tilley, who worked at the business from July 2022 until March 2023, discussed her sexual partners with colleagues and referred to them as “Johnny Depp”.
She also “kissed another woman in full view of others” at the work Christmas party and was caught editing a collage on her personal laptop of naked male torsos.
Ms Tilley claimed her colleagues had repeatedly asked intrusive questions about her romantic life after she started a relationship with a colleague. She argued that her actions were justified as she was trying to shock them into leaving her alone.
In one incident, Ms Tilley pointed to gold stickers on her computer in reference to what someone was like in bed, saying: “What do you think the gold stars are for?” She said the comment was only made after persistent questioning.
Dismissing the claim, employment judge Liz Ord said Ms Tilley “readily participated in conversations of a sexual nature”, used “explicit language” and “had images of naked male torsos on her computer screen saver”.
Ms Tilley told The Telegraph that the images were of celebrities including Superman actor Henry Cavill and were on her personal computer. She said they were “no worse than [what] you would see in a magazine on a newsstand”.
She added that a claim made in the case that she had shown a group of colleagues a sex tape is “false” and “completely inaccurate” with no evidence.
She also denied making a particularly explicit sexual comment that was repeatedly referenced in the court documents.
The recruitment consultant said: “Because I’d been involved in sexual conversations prior didn’t mean I couldn’t feel harrassed in that situation [when asked repeated questions about her relationship]”.
Employment tribunals are meant to be a last resort, with the majority of cases not going to court. According to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas), 76pc of cases in the year to March 2024 did not progress to a tribunal hearing.
The outcome of cases can be unpredictable. Earlier this year an employment judge ruled that describing a woman as looking “frumpy” at work could count as discrimination as the comment is “inherently linked to gender” and has the potential of “violating their dignity”.