A saleswoman who discovered her male colleagues had placed bets on who would sleep with her first has been asked to pay her former employer's legal costs after losing a sexual harassment claim on technical grounds. Molly Craigie was left stunned when she learned that her colleagues, including her boss, had wagered on who would 'bed' her shortly after she joined East Anglia Home Improvements in September 2022.
Judge Condemns Office Bet as Harassment Despite Case Dismissal
Ms Craigie sued the firm, which describes itself as 'the UK's number one home improvement provider', but her claim was dismissed because she brought it too late. However, Employment Judge Rebecca Peer found that betting on who would sleep with a female colleague amounted to harassment, stating: 'I find that any such wager is unwanted conduct of a sexual nature.'
Technicality Leads to Dismissal of Harassment Claims
The tribunal heard that Ms Craigie, who was in her early 20s at the time, discovered within two months of starting her role that two colleagues had 'placed a wager between themselves as to who would sleep with me first'. She told the hearing this comment 'stuck' with her as it was the first time she felt sexualised and singled out because of her gender.
Judge Peer noted there was no evidence Ms Craigie had directly confronted anyone about the wager or sought further information, but emphasised the conduct was unacceptable. The harassment allegations were ultimately dismissed because they were brought 'out of time', a technical failure that prevented the substantive merits from being fully adjudicated.
Unpaid Holiday Award and Subsequent Costs Battle
Ms Craigie did succeed in one aspect of her claim, winning £4,775 for unpaid holiday pay. However, East Anglia Home Improvements has refused to pay this amount. In a further development, the company applied to have Ms Craigie pay £7,500 to cover their legal fees from the tribunal claim.
The firm's legal representative argued Ms Craigie had 'tried to manipulate the Tribunal into hearing a fanciful case' and claimed she was 'prejudiced' because the business withheld the holiday pay pending the costs decision. They also alleged she made an anonymity application in bad faith.
Tribunal Rejects Costs Application on Procedural Grounds
The tribunal dismissed the costs application because East Anglia Home Improvements submitted it too late. Judge Peer added that even if it had been made on time, it would have been unsuccessful, indicating the application lacked merit.
Wider Workplace Issues Revealed During Proceedings
The hearing also uncovered other concerning workplace practices. Ms Craigie testified she was told she'd been hired because 'she would not intimidate elderly customers', suggesting gender-based assumptions influenced her recruitment. She left the business in June 2023 and pursued the tribunal claim, alleging sexual harassment among other grievances.
During proceedings, the company argued Ms Craigie was a self-employed contractor, meaning the tribunal had 'no jurisdiction to entertain her claims'. This contractual dispute further complicated the case, though the tribunal proceeded to examine the substantive allegations.
Ongoing Financial and Legal Implications
The case highlights significant issues around workplace culture, timely legal action, and the financial risks employees face when bringing tribunal claims. Despite the judge's clear condemnation of the betting behaviour, the technical dismissal and subsequent costs application have left Ms Craigie without redress for the harassment and facing continued financial uncertainty.
The tribunal's decision to reject the costs application provides some relief, but the unpaid holiday award and the original harassment allegations remain unresolved, underscoring the challenges in addressing workplace misconduct through legal channels.
