A married senior manager accused of sexual harassment told a junior colleague 'I can't get you out of my head' in a reference to Kylie Minogue's hit song, an employment tribunal has heard.
The messages
Steven Powell, then 42, messaged Katie Stoney, then in her 20s, about the song and told her 'I have to be honest I'm on the Kylie 2001 vibe and I can't lie'. He told Ms Stoney he found her 'totally intoxicating' in messages on social media. Ms Stoney rejected him, saying: 'You are a manager in work who's married with a child and older than me', and 'I don't want to be involved in that'.
Dismissal and tribunal
Mr Powell was sacked from Sigmatex UK after Ms Stoney complained about the harassment. He took his former employer to a tribunal for unfair dismissal and lost. The tribunal, held in Manchester, heard that Mr Powell started working for Cheshire-based Sigmatex in 2014. He was employed as the European commercial manager when Ms Stoney made allegations that she was sexually harassed while working for the textile manufacturer.
Inappropriate messages
Mr Powell, a member of the senior management team, was accused of sending a number of inappropriate messages to the former junior employee. The tribunal heard that in April 2023, he sent a message to her at 3.36am while they were staying at a hotel in Paris on company business. The message said 'See you soon' followed by a winking emoji, then six minutes later he sent her his hotel room number. Ms Stoney did not reply to either message. She also did not reply when he messaged her on another date just before midnight, saying: 'Heart on sleeve I find you totally intoxicating and I should not. 30 year old me wishes with all my heart to be here now and to meet you. This can't happen but it's the reason why I reach out. If I were to apologise I would be a liar.'
Kylie Minogue reference
The tribunal heard that in May 2023 there was an 'exchange of messages relating to the Kylie Minogue track 'Can't get you out of my head'.' After the exchange, Mr Powell said: 'After my apologies, which I really did mean. I have to be honest I'm on the Kylie 2001 vibe and I can't lie. That said, the tone of your reply says politely fuck off. So I'll do so.'
Further advances
Mr Powell then said: 'Final statement you are funny, mildly geeky, intelligent, inquisitive, interested in almost everyone you meet, slightly oblivious of your beauty, endearingly West Yorkshire, utterly captivating and really great lady.' The message was immediately followed with: 'It's not hard for me to see why I struggled to keep myself to myself.' Ms Stoney responded to Mr Powell, saying 'Well it seems I've made an impression to say the least!', adding 'Possibly but it's also important to remember there are boundaries that can't be crossed and I guess professionalism to keep'. She then told him to have a wonderful weekend, to which he immediately responded 'That isn't decisive. Ignoring all of the scenarios is this a firm no, for you? I hope not but you can be brutally honest with me'. He then added 'You seem to have struggled to reply. I'd chase you on a pirate boat up the Yangtze River to be honest. Death or glory!'.
Rejection
Ms Stoney said in reply: 'You are a manager in work who's married with a child and older than me (expressionless emoji). It's a no because that's not something I would like to move forward with. I mean it in the most respectful way, but I don't want to be involved in that. I will laugh with you and respect you but there is a line I naturally do not want to cross.' Mr Powell then said: 'I'm going to disconnect from you to save any further awkwardness between us caused by my ridiculous behaviour. Sorry for being a typical dickhead, I'd have liked to consider myself better than that so I must try harder.'
Investigation and dismissal
Ms Stoney made the sexual harassment allegations in June 2024, and Mr Powell was suspended pending an investigation. In a meeting that same month, Mr Powell said that 'he had been struggling with personal and financial pressures, that he had been drinking heavily outside work as a coping mechanism, and had deleted the messages from LinkedIn the following morning because he felt ashamed of them'. He said that there had been 'mutuality' in the messages with Ms Stoney, and denied that he had ever behaved in a similar way to any other female colleagues. But the tribunal heard an investigation uncovered messages on his work phone to Christine Barr, another junior female employee. These messages were sent when they were both away overnight on a business trip in June 2024. He invited her to 'put your door on the snip and come for a snuggle' and suggested she was welcome to join him to watch 'Naked Attraction' together.
Further misconduct
Mr Powell admitted sending these messages late at night while drunk, and said he saved her number under the name 'Sigmatex' because 'his wife was jealous of [Ms Barr] and he did not want her seeing [Ms Barr]'s name appear on his phone'. He told investigators that these messages with Ms Barr had been 'mischaracterised' because they arose from 'an ostensibly consensual relationship' between the pair which had existed some time earlier. Mr Powell said he lied about the messages before because he 'felt panicked and was trying to protect himself'. He also disclosed that he had started going to Alcoholics Anonymous after the investigation against him began. Mr Powell was dismissed for gross misconduct in July 2024.
Tribunal decision
He lost his unfair dismissal case. Employment Judge Michael Rawlinson said: '[Mr Powell] submitted during submissions that these messages amounted merely to 'a man asking a woman out', being politely rejected on 'amicable terms', and that they were a 'galaxy away' from sexual harassment and other incidents within the employer's knowledge. I do not accept that the employer was bound to accept that characterisation when forming its belief. The context, content, timing and tenor of the messages - including the disclosure of [Mr Powell]'s hotel room number at 3.30am, the nature of the language and words used, the pressing for 'decisive' answers after [Miss Stoney] had referred expressly to 'boundaries', and the immediate follow‑up when she attempted to keep matters professional — in my view would permit a reasonable employer to view the conduct as both unwanted and inappropriate and as amounting to sexual harassment. That is particularly so given the obvious imbalance of position and age as between the parties.' The judge added that the messages to Ms Barr showed that Mr Powell had been deliberately dishonest when asked if he had behaved similarly towards any other colleague.
