A former P.A. at the Qatari Embassy has been awarded almost £400,000 after a campaign of sexual abuse.
The Claimant experienced feelings of depression, inability to cope with her emotional distress and ultimately clinical depression, leading her to contemplate suicide.
A Tribunal ordered the Government of the State of Qatar to pay its former employee £388,920.15 in compensation along with her costs.
The Claimant claimed that she was subjected to a lengthy campaign of discrimination because of sex and religion or belief for the whole of her employment. This included the following acts:
- The Executive Ambassador at the Qatari Embassy, doing the following:
- Repeatedly inviting the Claimant to chew Qat (stimulant) at his penthouse, telling the Claimant that his friend became sexually aroused by chewing Qat and implying to the Claimant that he wished her to come to his penthouse and chew Qat for similar reasons.
- Telling the Claimant about him having had sex with another woman and giving explicit details of the encounter.
- Making persistent sexual advances towards the Claimant.
- When the Claimant did not consent to his sexual advances, telling the Claimant that he wished to propose to the Claimant’s 19 year old daughter. The Claimant understood him to mean a short marriage so that he could have sex with the Claimant’s daughter.
- Talking in a sleazy way to the Claimant’s daughter, wrapping his gown around her and asking the Claimant to take a photo of her.
- Telling the Claimant that he would take the Claimant’s daughter to Paris and buy her anything she wanted and asking the Claimant repeatedly about her daughter.
- Giving the Claimant a warning for following an appropriate booking process, that is, when the Claimant was not at fault and when men were not given warnings in such circumstances.
- Refusing to accept the Claimant’s Ramadan greeting in 2012 because he said the Claimant did not believe in God and telling the Claimant that she should follow Islam because her family name originated from the prophet Mohammed.
- Suspending the Claimant for two weeks when a visitor was not met at the airport due to the Claimant being provided with the wrong information by the Claimant’s male colleague, who was not disciplined.
- Telling the Claimant that she should not have returned and that she would be dismissed in two weeks’ time, and smiling and enjoying the Claimant’s distress while doing so.
- Thereafter, repeatedly threatening to dismiss the Claimant for no reason.
- The Head of Protocol and the Claimant’s Line Manager, doing the following:
- Repeatedly promoting the Claimant’s male colleague through several roles in a short period of time, with no transparent process applied, but never promoting the Claimant.
- Asking the Claimant to go to Paris to deliver an item to the Prime Minister’s son outside working hours and requiring her to return to work the next morning, to humiliate the Claimant.
- Dismissing the Claimant, without giving any reason, alongside a male employee, who was then reinstated.
- Insisting that the Claimant arrange a host private parties for him, which the Claimant understood to be sex parties.
- Attempting to persuade the Claimant to go to Cuba on holiday with him and suggesting that the Claimant transfer to the Paris Embassy.
