Legal update: Sexual Harassment in the Workplace


Lessons from Piromalli v Charles Trent Ltd and the New Legal Duty for Employers

In recent years, the conversation around workplace harassment has shifted from reactive compliance to proactive prevention. This evolution was cemented by the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023, which came into force on 26 October 2024. The legislation introduced a new legal duty requiring employers to take “reasonable steps” to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.  

 The recent tribunal decision in Miss A Piromalli v Charles Trent Ltd offers a timely and powerful case study of what happens when those steps are not taken. 

Miss A Piromalli was employed as Head of People and Culture at Charles Trent Ltd from January 2022 until her resignation in January 2024. She brought a multifaceted claim against her employer, including allegations of sexual harassment, harassment related to sex, constructive dismissal, and sex discrimination. While some claims were ultimately dismissed, the tribunal upheld six serious incidents of harassment, primarily perpetrated by her manager. 

The tribunal found that Miss Piromalli had been subjected to degrading comments such as “this is a man’s world,” accusations that she was hired for her appearance, and repeated unwanted physical contact. These incidents were corroborated by contemporaneous grievance filings, WhatsApp messages, and witness testimony. The tribunal concluded that these actions constituted unlawful sexual harassment and a breach of her employment contract. 

Although the tribunal dismissed claims of constructive dismissal and direct sex discrimination, it was critical of the employer’s handling of the situation. It noted that while grievances were raised and disciplinary processes initiated, they lacked formal outcomes or appeal rights, a failure described as “poor practice.” The tribunal also extended the time limit to hear some of the claims, acknowledging the seriousness of the misconduct and the claimant’s initial lack of legal representation. 

This case underscores the importance of not only responding to complaints but doing so in a structured, transparent, and timely manner. The tribunal’s decision sends a clear message: isolated incidents of harassment, when serious enough, can meet the legal threshold for liability and employers who fail to act decisively may be held accountable. 

Under the Worker Protection Act, employers are now legally required to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment. This duty is proactive, meaning it applies even before any complaint is made. Employers must anticipate risks and implement measures to mitigate them. 

Key expectations include: 

  • Clear policies and procedures that define unacceptable behaviour and outline reporting mechanisms. 
  • Regular training for all staff, including leadership, on recognising and preventing harassment. 
  • Prompt and thorough investigations into complaints, with documented outcomes and appeal rights. 
  • A workplace culture that encourages respect, inclusion, and accountability. 

Failure to meet this duty can result in increased liability, including compensation uplifts in tribunal awards where an employer is found to have failed in its preventative obligations. 

The Piromalli case is a stark reminder that harassment can occur even in roles designed to uphold workplace culture and wellbeing. It also illustrates how a lack of formal response mechanisms can compound harm and legal exposure. With the new legal duty now in force, employers must move beyond passive compliance and embrace a culture of active prevention. 

The message is clear: sexual harassment is not just a personal or HR issue, it is a legal risk, a cultural failure, and a leadership challenge. Employers who fail to act may find themselves not only in breach of the law but also in breach of the trust their employees place in them.