Sales worker’s male colleagues ‘bet on if they could sleep with her first’

A woman who was the victim of a gross bet by men in her former workplace as her old colleagues bet who could sleep with her first has been demanded to pay her former employees legal costs

A company demanded £7,500 from a female worker who claimed she was the subject of a bet from male employees over who would sleep with her first. Molly Craigie sued her former employer for sexual harassment after her colleagues – including her boss – after she said they put a bet on who would “bed” her first.

The saleswoman lost her sexual harassment case against a company called East Anglia Home Improvements on technical grounds because she brought her claim too late. Despite the dismissal, a judge found that betting on who will have sleep with a female colleague amounts to harassment.

Miss Craigie did win an unpaid holiday claim and the firm was ordered to pay her £4,775. However, the business refused to give her the money. Now, the company has asked for Miss Craigie to pay it £7,500 in legal costs.

A tribunal dismissed the costs application because East Anglia Home Improvements made it too late – but the judge added that it would have been unsuccessful even if it had been made on time.

The tribunal, held in Watford, was told Miss Craigie joined the business in September 2022. The saleswoman’s role involved visiting customers who had expressed an interest in double-glazing or home improvements and seeking to confirm contracts. Miss Craigie, who was in her early 20s at the time, told the tribunal that in December 2022, a colleague told her that two of her colleagues had “placed a wager between themselves as to who would sleep with me first”.

The saleswoman said the betting on who would “bed me first” came before they knew she was in a “long-term” and “committed” relationship. She said this comment “stuck” with her “as it was the first time I felt my colleagues, one of which was a member of management, sexualised me and singled me out, all down to my sex”.

She left the business in June 2023 and took the company to the tribunal, alleging sexual harassment among other claims. During proceedings, the business said Miss Craigie was a self-employed contractor and therefore the tribunal had “no jurisdiction to entertain her claims”.

Discussing the “wager”, Employment Judge Rebecca Peer said: “I find that any such wager is unwanted conduct of a sexual nature”. The wager allegation was brought “out of time”, the judge concluded.

Her complaints of sexual harassment were dismissed. The business was ordered to pay Miss Craigie £4,775 for holiday pay. It is still unpaid, it was heard.

East Anglia Home Improvements applied to have Miss Craigie pay £7,500 to cover its legal fees relating to the tribunal claim. Its legal representative told the tribunal that Miss Craigie “from the outset has tried to manipulate the Tribunal into hearing a fanciful case”.

The representative said that Miss Craigie was “prejudiced” because the business had decided not to pay the amount it was ordered to pay until its costs award was dealt with. It was also claimed that she had made an anonymity application in bad faith.

Judge Peer said: “I note that whilst [Miss Craigie]’s complaints of harassment were dismissed that of itself does not mean they were ‘fanciful’ complaints from the outset and that word is not used in the judgment.”

The judge said that Miss Craigie had not acted unreasonably as the business claimed. She said: “In any event, in the context of her complaints of sexual harassment, that she wished to protect sensitive personal information, that there were different EAT [Employment Appeal Tribunal] decisions and that a fact sensitive balancing exercise was required it was not unreasonable to make the application.”

Judge Peer found that the costs application had been made out of time, so it was refused. The judge added “even if discretion was exercised so as to extend time for the applications seeking costs orders, discretion neither could nor would be exercised so as to make any award for costs and the application would be dismissed”.