January 27, 2026
The Claimant was employed as a Sales Executive by the Respondent from October 2023 until their resignation in May 2025. Following their resignation, they brought claims of sex and race discrimination, harassment, constructive unfair dismissal, failure to give notice, and breach of minimum wage obligations. The complaints centred on alleged physical and verbal abuse by their line manager, exclusion from team communications, unequal assistance with sales, and a hostile environment. Specific incidents included a tap on the head with spectacles, a thrown calculator, and a remark implying difficulty understanding the claimant’s accent.
The Respondent denied discriminatory conduct and pointed to performance concerns and the claimant’s own antagonistic behaviour. Internal investigation and grievance procedures were conducted, culminating in an appeal that upheld earlier findings. The claimant resigned immediately after the grievance appeal was rejected, asserting that this act constituted the “last straw” in a cumulative breach of trust and confidence.
The Tribunal examined each allegation in detail. It accepted that physical contact occurred but characterised it as a misguided attempt at levity rather than discriminatory or abusive conduct. Other incidents were either unproven or amounted to workplace disagreements. The Tribunal held that the grievance appeal outcome was innocuous and did not transform prior tensions into a fundamental breach.
Claims of harassment under the Discrimination (Jersey) Law 2013 failed because the conduct was not related to a protected characteristic. Minimum wage and notice pay claims were also dismissed.
This case reinforces that even where there is friction or poor management, constructive dismissal requires a fundamental breach of contract. This reinforces that employees cannot rely on ordinary workplace disputes to justify resignation and claim constructive dismissal.
The Claimant was employed as a Sales Executive by the Respondent from October 2023 until their resignation in May 2025. Following their resignation, they brought claims of sex and race discrimination, harassment, constructive unfair dismissal, failure to give notice, and breach of minimum wage obligations. The complaints centred on alleged physical and verbal abuse by their line manager, exclusion from team communications, unequal assistance with sales, and a hostile environment. Specific incidents included a tap on the head with spectacles, a thrown calculator, and a remark implying difficulty understanding the claimant’s accent.
The Respondent denied discriminatory conduct and pointed to performance concerns and the claimant’s own antagonistic behaviour. Internal investigation and grievance procedures were conducted, culminating in an appeal that upheld earlier findings. The claimant resigned immediately after the grievance appeal was rejected, asserting that this act constituted the “last straw” in a cumulative breach of trust and confidence.
The Tribunal examined each allegation in detail. It accepted that physical contact occurred but characterised it as a misguided attempt at levity rather than discriminatory or abusive conduct. Other incidents were either unproven or amounted to workplace disagreements. The Tribunal held that the grievance appeal outcome was innocuous and did not transform prior tensions into a fundamental breach.
Claims of harassment under the Discrimination (Jersey) Law 2013 failed because the conduct was not related to a protected characteristic. Minimum wage and notice pay claims were also dismissed.
This case reinforces that even where there is friction or poor management, constructive dismissal requires a fundamental breach of contract. This reinforces that employees cannot rely on ordinary workplace disputes to justify resignation and claim constructive dismissal.
The Claimant was employed as a Sales Executive by the Respondent from October 2023 until their resignation in May 2025. Following their resignation, they brought claims of sex and race discrimination, harassment, constructive unfair dismissal, failure to give notice, and breach of minimum wage obligations. The complaints centred on alleged physical and verbal abuse by their line manager, exclusion from team communications, unequal assistance with sales, and a hostile environment. Specific incidents included a tap on the head with spectacles, a thrown calculator, and a remark implying difficulty understanding the claimant’s accent.
The Respondent denied discriminatory conduct and pointed to performance concerns and the claimant’s own antagonistic behaviour. Internal investigation and grievance procedures were conducted, culminating in an appeal that upheld earlier findings. The claimant resigned immediately after the grievance appeal was rejected, asserting that this act constituted the “last straw” in a cumulative breach of trust and confidence.
The Tribunal examined each allegation in detail. It accepted that physical contact occurred but characterised it as a misguided attempt at levity rather than discriminatory or abusive conduct. Other incidents were either unproven or amounted to workplace disagreements. The Tribunal held that the grievance appeal outcome was innocuous and did not transform prior tensions into a fundamental breach.
Claims of harassment under the Discrimination (Jersey) Law 2013 failed because the conduct was not related to a protected characteristic. Minimum wage and notice pay claims were also dismissed.
This case reinforces that even where there is friction or poor management, constructive dismissal requires a fundamental breach of contract. This reinforces that employees cannot rely on ordinary workplace disputes to justify resignation and claim constructive dismissal.
The Claimant was employed as a Sales Executive by the Respondent from October 2023 until their resignation in May 2025. Following their resignation, they brought claims of sex and race discrimination, harassment, constructive unfair dismissal, failure to give notice, and breach of minimum wage obligations. The complaints centred on alleged physical and verbal abuse by their line manager, exclusion from team communications, unequal assistance with sales, and a hostile environment. Specific incidents included a tap on the head with spectacles, a thrown calculator, and a remark implying difficulty understanding the claimant’s accent.
The Respondent denied discriminatory conduct and pointed to performance concerns and the claimant’s own antagonistic behaviour. Internal investigation and grievance procedures were conducted, culminating in an appeal that upheld earlier findings. The claimant resigned immediately after the grievance appeal was rejected, asserting that this act constituted the “last straw” in a cumulative breach of trust and confidence.
The Tribunal examined each allegation in detail. It accepted that physical contact occurred but characterised it as a misguided attempt at levity rather than discriminatory or abusive conduct. Other incidents were either unproven or amounted to workplace disagreements. The Tribunal held that the grievance appeal outcome was innocuous and did not transform prior tensions into a fundamental breach.
Claims of harassment under the Discrimination (Jersey) Law 2013 failed because the conduct was not related to a protected characteristic. Minimum wage and notice pay claims were also dismissed.
This case reinforces that even where there is friction or poor management, constructive dismissal requires a fundamental breach of contract. This reinforces that employees cannot rely on ordinary workplace disputes to justify resignation and claim constructive dismissal.