After a 2023 employment tribunal ruled that Lidl failed to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment, the company signed a legal agreement with the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) last month.
The agreement is a direct result of the ruling and requires Lidl to implement measures to better protect its employees by committing the business to the following:
-
Gather employee feedback through carrying out a comprehensive staff survey to assess if additional preventative measures are necessary
-
Establish a system to monitor and analyse informal complaints of sexual harassment to help the business to identify any ongoing risks and whether further preventative steps are needed
-
Carry out a review of the formal complaint process and to start monitoring how effectively new formal complaints of sexual harassment are handled ensuring a fair and timely resolution
-
Analyse a sample of sexual harassment complaints from 2023 and 2024 to identify any recurring trends or risks
-
Meet with existing Equality, Diversity and Inclusion groups to discuss sexual harassment risks and gather their input on potential preventative actions
-
Continuously monitor and review the company’s sexual harassment risk assessment to adapt to any changes
-
Review and update internal harassment policies and training materials, including guidance on professional relationships in the workplace
This legal agreement is known as a ‘section 23 agreement’ and is just one way in which the EHRC operates its enforcement powers to ensure organisation’s do not breach equality laws. Whilst in this case involving Lidl, this came because of the judgement, however, the EHRC doesn’t need a judicial finding of unlawful discrimination to enter a ‘section 23 agreement’.
With that in mind, let’s take a closer look at the case further…
The Tribunal
This case, Miss Hunter v Lidl Great Britain, highlights that employers face significant legal risks if they fail to address a culture of inappropriate behaviour, ignore employee complaints, or fall short on fair pay and working conditions. Understanding these responsibilities is crucial for creating a healthy workplace and protecting your company.
What Happened
Miss M Hunter was employed by Lidl Great Britain Limited, starting as a Customer Assistant in February 2019 and promoted to Shift Manager in August 2020. Her employment ended on July 7, 2021.
During this time, Miss Hunter was subjected to several incidents of unwanted sexual conduct, primarily by a Deputy Store Manager but also involving another colleague.
The conduct included inappropriate comments about the perpetrators own sex life, making sexually suggestive remarks and making comments about Miss Hunter’s own appearance making her feel very uncomfortable. Other managers also made comments about her uniform which had sexual overtones and there was also found to be a “ranking system” of females based on perceived attractiveness among male staff. She also experienced unwanted physical contact such as, often daily, touching her on the bum, thighs, and waist, and putting his arm around her, and attempted to hug her, despite her making it clear this was unwanted and asking him to stop.
Miss Hunter took several attempts to complain, initially verbally on several occasions to various line managers and made one written complaint. Her complaints however were largely ignored or dismissed. She was in fact told to “take it as a compliment”.
During her employment, she also discovered that she was paid less than male colleagues carrying out the same role, and even when raising her concerns about the significant pay discrepancies (nearly £3000 over 6 months), these were not addressed by the business.
In June 2021 she was informed that she would need to attend a performance discussion about her lateness. Despite explaining the various issues, including harassment, she decided to resign and subsequently claimed constructive unfair dismissal.
The Tribunal Findings
Managers showed a “lack of awareness and training on harassment” and “paid no attention to her complaints and closed their eyes and ears to the culture of harassment”.
The Employment Tribunal heard the case and made the following unanimous judgments:
The Tribunal found that the unwanted conduct that was of a sexual nature or related to her sex did occur and her case of harassment related to sex succeeded. Crucially, the Tribunal concluded that this behaviour constituted sexual harassment, even if the perpetrators did not intend to cause offence or realise their behaviour was inappropriate. Their actions were seen as reflecting a “culture in the store where such behaviour was allowed to go unchecked”.
Lidl was found vicariously liable for their employees conduct with the Tribunal explicitly finding that the employer did not take “all reasonable steps to prevent harassment,” citing a lack of relevant training for staff and managers, there had been no risk assessments, and there being a failure for the company to comply with their own Anti-Harassment policy and the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) code.
Furthermore, the Tribunal accepted that the harassment was a “continuing course of conduct,” meaning earlier incidents were considered relevant, and therefore the claim was brought within the time limit.
Incidentally, aside from the harassment and sexual harassment claims, Miss Hunter was also successful in her claims for equal pay and unfair dismissal. Lidl’s admission that the pay difference was an “administrative error” was not accepted as a valid “material factor” defence to justify the pay difference due to sex. The Tribunal also found that Miss Hunter was constructively unfairly dismissed, meaning she was entitled to resign in response to a fundamental breach of her contract by the employer. Her reasons for resigning included the harassment, her belief she was not being paid properly, the failure to resolve her pay queries and complaints, being required to work excessive hours, and being required to work while clocked out.
The “final straw” was the Store Manager telling her he would “write her up” for lateness, without acknowledging the other significant problems she faced. This conduct amounted to a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.
Equality Human Rights Commission enforcement powers
Not only was Lidl found liable and was unsuccessful in defending claims of sex discrimination and sexual harassment, but it was also required to enter into a legal agreement with the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), which they did do so last month. This agreement was as a direct result of the ruling and requires the company to:
-
Run a staff survey relating to sexual harassment within the workplace and assess if additional preventative steps are necessary
-
Develop a system to monitor and analyse informal complaints of sexual harassment to identify ongoing risks and whether additional preventative steps are required
-
Monitor the effectiveness of complaint handling for new formal complaints of sexual harassment
-
Review a sample of sexual harassment complaints from 2023 and 2024 to assess any trends and risks
-
Arrange meetings with its existing DE&I groups to discuss risks of sexual harassment, and any additional preventative steps which could be taken
-
Continue to monitor and review its sexual harassment risk assessment
-
Further review internal harassment policies and training content, including its relationships at work guidance
Key learnings for Employers
If we focus specifically on harassment and sexual harassment claims, this case offers crucial insights:
-
“Banter” is not a defence for harassment. What one person considers “banter” can be deeply offensive and harassing to another. The Tribunal found that the perpetrator did not intend to cause offence, but that does not excuse the employer’s liability. It is important to focus on the impact of the behaviour, not just the intent.
-
Culture is key and as we have seen in this Lidl case, the culture in the store where the behaviour was allowed to go unchecked was a significant factor in the harassment finding. Line managers have a responsibility to actively foster an inclusive and respectful environment and challenge inappropriate comments or actions, even if they seem minor.
-
The fact that Miss Hunter’s numerous verbal complaints and written complaint were ignored and dismissed as “compliments”, without investigating was a serious failing. Line managers need to be trained to recognise and act on all forms of complaints, even if informally raised or not explicitly labelled as “harassment”.
-
Lidl had an Anti-Harassment policy, but the Tribunal found there had been a “lack of training and awareness about harassment” among line managers and area managers. Robust policies and training are therefore essential and must be applied and for everyone to understand how to implement them effectively, investigate complaints, and provide support. Simply having a policy isn’t enough; it must be a living document that guides behaviour and response.
-
This case found Lidl vicarious liability, meaning they were responsible for the perpetrator’s actions because it was acts of harassment carried out “in the course of their employment,” even without Lidl’s knowledge or approval. The only defence that can be taken is by proving “all reasonable steps to prevent” the harassment had been taken. For Lidl, the lack of training, risk assessments, and policy adherence meant this defence failed.
-
A pattern of unaddressed issues and ignored complaints can fundamentally break the relationship of trust and confidence between employer and employee. Even a seemingly small “last straw” incident (like a performance discussion about lateness without acknowledging contributing factors as was in this case) can trigger a valid constructive unfair dismissal claim.
-
This case provides a powerful reminder that proactive management, clear communication, consistent application of policies, and a genuine commitment to a respectful and fair workplace are not just good practice – they are legal necessities. Managers must be vigilant, empathetic, and knowledgeable to prevent similar situations and protect their employees and their organisation.
