The walk of shame

Employment Tribunal decisions don’t normally make very good clickbait. But the recent case of Mrs H Selkin v Opico Limited, in which I represented the Claimant, is an object lesson for employers in the importance of considering the reputational damage that can arise from having embarrassing allegations set out in a public Judgment.

Background

The Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct after being found to have made comments amounting to harassment of male colleagues. In her appeal against dismissal, she drew attention to the contrast in the approach taken by the Respondent to the complaint made against her, with the lack of response to complaints she had made about sexist comments over the years, alleging that there was a ‘toxic culture of sexism at Opico’.

Her appeal was not upheld and she brought a claim of unfair dismissal and harassment related to sex, involving allegations of sexist comments made to her over a three year period by two of Opico’s three directors, including the Managing Director. On one occasion, the MD was alleged to have said of the Claimant and another female colleague, ‘just leave the Witches to stirring the cauldron’.

On another occasion, when discussing the cost of a marketing trailer, he had said to her in front of male colleagues ‘As long as you don’t spend too much, you’re not shopping for a dress’. A third comment, by another director, said that Jeremy Clarkson’s infamous Game of Thrones-inspired comments about Meghan Markle were not offensive. To make matters worse, the comments alleged were largely not disputed by the Respondent.

Hubris and Nemesis

This was clearly therefore never going to be a Judgment which would reflect well on the company, and the judge warned both parties that the Judgment and Reasons could appear on the internet, and given the sensitive issues invited them to consider dialogue. The Claimant was prepared to settle, but the Respondent refused even to negotiate.

Needless to say, the Tribunal upheld the claim of unfair dismissal, as well as six allegations of harassment relating to sex including the three above, and in the process made a number of adverse findings about the credibility of the Respondent’s witnesses.

The Tribunal having reserved its Judgment, the Reasons were published online, and quickly picked up by journalists, who unsurprisingly seized on the (entirely peripheral) Jeremy Clarkson and Meghan Markle angle. As a result, the story has now been extensively covered, with varying degrees of accuracy, in the national press.

GB News went so far as to describe it as ‘a landmark ruling’ and a ‘major legal setback’ for Mr Clarkson – neither of which could be further from the truth – but that is no doubt scant consolation to the Respondent’s directors, whose pictures and comments are now widely reported online (eg https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14472561/Director-harassed-manager-Jeremy-Clarkson-Meghan-Markle-naked.html; https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/07/agreeing-with-jeremy-clarkson-on-meghan-sexual-harassment/; https://www.gbnews.com/royal/meghan-markle-jeremy-clarkson-major-legal-setback).

The Moral of the Story

The five figure sum agreed at the remedy hearing is likely to be the least costly aspect of the case for the company. The lesson for Respondents is clear – be careful what you wish for…

Richard Wayman