MoS condemns no-names order in 'highly sensitive' sex discrimination tribunal

A judge has imposed a gagging order on a sex discrimination case involving a senior figure at ‘one of Britain’s most high-profile public bodies,’according to the Mail on Sunday.

The media is banned from naming either the senior director in the case or the former female colleague that has brought the claims.

It is also forbidden from identifying the organisation they worked for, which the MoS described as being “deeply involved in law and order”.

The paper said the man, who is in his 50s, ‘has overseen a number of controversial issues that have led to turmoil within the organisation and the departure of key individuals,’and described the woman as being ‘considerably younger’than him.

The MoS report said

The executive at the centre of the latest controversy was earning £180,000 of taxpayers’ money a year until he took early retirement last month. He decided to quit after his junior colleague made a formal complaint about his conduct.

They had been close friends but the relationship broke down and she made ‘highly sensitive’ misconduct claims which have never been aired in public.

A member of the regulatory body that oversees the organisation is later quoted as saying:

It seems quite extraordinary that a secrecy order has been imposed. I will be demanding to know on what grounds the decision was taken. It is simply not appropriate.

The banning order was imposed after both parties approached Judge Potter, seeking anonymity under the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 and the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2004, which allow reporting restrictions to be imposed where there are allegations sexual discrimination.

The newspaper claims the organisation is involved in at least 36 other tribunals, the details of which can be freely reported.

Earlier this month Judge Potter also granted anonymity to a well-known celebrity chef who is being taken to an employment tribunal by former staff who claim they were mistreaded and later sacked/

The press is unable to identity either the chef or the claimants.

Comments
No comments to display

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

twenty + 3 =

CLOSE
CLOSE