A female sales assistant who sued a raw pet food business for age and sex discrimination after her male boss shouted ‘at the top of his voice’ that she ‘must be in her menopause’ has won a £20,000 payout.
Leigh Best, 52, was working at the upmarket Embark on Raw in Billericay, Essex, when owner David Fletcher made the ‘tactless’ and ‘derogatory’ comment.
She also raised concerns about the shop’s Covid safety procedures on multiple occasions at the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020, but was told she was being ‘paranoid’.
An employment tribunal heard the married Mrs Best complained about Mr Fletcher’s menopause comment, but was told to ‘stop moaning’ and was sacked a month later.
He made the remark after a customer in the shop mentioned having a ‘hot flush’, despite Mrs Best covering her ears and saying ‘I don’t want to hear about it’.
Mrs Best, who now owns her own raw dog and cat food business, RawKings Premium, took her former employers to a tribunal claiming age and sex discrimination and unfair dismissal.
The panel found that Mr Fletcher had broached a ‘highly sensitive topic’ when he asked her about the menopause.
In March 2020, Mrs Best had a ‘relatively small’ argument with her boss regarding an order mix up, which led to him shouting about her being menopausal from a back room, the tribunal heard.
The panel said: ‘(He) made inappropriate and derogatory comments about her age and remarks, relevant to her sex as a woman, relating to his perception or “guess” that she might be menopausal or be experiencing stereotypical menopausal symptoms.’
Leigh Best, 52, has won an age and sex discrimination case against her former employers at a raw dog and cat food firm
Business owner David Fletcher (left) shouted that Mrs Best ‘must be in her menopause’ following an order error. He is pictured here alongside his wife Andrea (right)
Mrs Best was working for the upmarket Embark on Raw dog and cat food business in Billericay, Essex, when the incident took place
They added that this was ‘even after… she had made it quite clear that she did not wish to participate in any such discussion’.
The panel continued: ‘A customer had been describing a “hot flush”, (Mrs Best) put her hands over her ears and said “I am having none of that, I don’t even want to hear about it, I don’t want to know”.
‘Mr Fletcher continued to pursue the topic even after the customer had departed and that was unwanted conduct which had the effect of violating (her) dignity and of creating a humiliating environment for her at work.’
When Mrs Best complained to Mr Fletcher’s wife and fellow owner Andrea, the tribunal found that she became ‘alarmed’ as the allegation ‘would reflect badly on her own husband’ and the business.
Mrs Best was told: ‘It shouldn’t happen like this. You’ve got to stop moaning and you’ve got to talk to people with respect, you’ve got to stop trying to blame people.
‘You’re very quick to tell people when they’re doing something wrong. you’ve got to get on with everybody or we’ll have to call it a day.’
The tribunal heard that, before her complaint, Mrs Best raised concerns about the way the business and its staff were dealing with the Covid pandemic.
As it was classed as an essential business, Embark on Raw remained open during lockdown restrictions.
Although the Fletchers assured customers it was following all hygiene procedures, Mrs Best claimed these were not ‘implemented’ and ‘enforced’.
The panel heard she was ‘extremely worried’ that neither the management, not staff, were consistently following the rules and were endangering the safety of themselves and others.
The tribunal was also told she ‘expressed extreme anxiety and stress’ when she noticed one of her colleagues coughing while not wearing a mask.
She subsequently complained to Mrs Fletcher about the ‘worrying situation in the shop’, but was told she was being ‘paranoid’ and asked to stop ‘digging’ fellow employees.
An employment tribunal heard Mrs Best (pictured) was victimised for complaining about Mr Fletcher’s behaviour towards her
This led to Mrs Fletcher accusing Mrs Best of creating ‘a divide in the business, in your words and your actions to other people’ on April 20.
It was during this conversation that Mrs Best also raised concerns about Mr Fletcher’s menopause comments, the tribunal heard.
When he heard of this ‘awful conversation’, Mr Fletcher told his wife that it was ‘time to let her go now’.
In May 2020, she was sacked for ‘rude’ and ‘confrontational’ communication with co-workers and managers – a decision she unsuccessfully appealed.
However, the tribunal ruled she had actually been sacked for raising her Covid concerns, before being victimised for complaining about Mr Fletcher’s behaviour towards her.
The tribunal panel, led by Employment Judge Bernice Elgot, concluded: ‘Mr Fletcher invaded the Claimant’s privacy, broached a highly sensitive topic for her and acted tactlessly in directly asking her, as an employee having the protected characteristic of sex as a woman, whether she was menopausal.
‘He asked that question even after… she had made it quite clear she did not wish to participate in any such discussion.
‘We are satisfied that part of the reason for the company’s decision to dismiss Mrs Best is that she made a significant allegation of sexism and ageism against Mr David Fletcher.’
With regard to her concerns over Covid safety, the panel added that she had made disclosures of ‘information’ which were in the ‘public interest’.
They said: ‘She was intervening to protect herself, her family, her close friends and contacts, the customers and suppliers of [the Fletcher’s] business and the wider public.’
Mrs Best will receive £20,057.74 in compensation.
