BREAKING NEWS
 

Truro solicitors' firm Follett Stock denies that lead partner bullied woman

Trusted article source icon
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Profile image for West Briton

West Briton

TRURO solicitors' firm Follett Stock has denied allegations of bullying by a lead partner said to have told an employee he did not want her to have a relationship or to have babies.

Kate Baker, 33, claims she was sacked from her £45,000-a-year job by Chris Lingard because of her gender after she formed a relationship, an employment tribunal judge was told last Tuesday.

  1. Chris Lingard allegedly told female employee not to form relationship or have babies.

    Chris Lingard allegedly told female employee not to form relationship or have babies.

In her statement to Exeter tribunal judge Christopher Carstairs, she claimed: "Employees are not allowed to talk between 9am to 1pm and they call this 'golden time'.

"Employees are often criticised by Mr Lingard."

Public Speaking / Presentation Coaching

Trevor Lee Media

View details

Print voucher

Are you nervous about public speaking or presenting ? I can help you become both confident and competent. For June I'm offering 60 minute coaching sessions for just £45 - Trevor Lee 07785 390717

Terms: Offer available to private individuals and businesses throughout June 2013.

Contact: 01326 330668

Valid until: Sunday, June 30 2013

Guy Hollebon, representing the firm, argued that its defence should be allowed, even though it was after the deadline, and the bullying and harassment claims were denied.

Miss Baker, from Devon, said in her first two weeks at the firm's office at Threemilestone, she saw one woman reduced to tears by Mr Lingard, who shouted at another about swapping desks.

She claimed he was aggressive with staff and regularly criticised them, including over taking lunch, the way calls were taken, a sign not being displayed properly, the radio not being switched on, or in the right place or station, blinds being shut, leaving at 5pm and looking miserable or grumpy. She also said she was expected to work at weekends, unlike married male colleagues.

She alleged Mr Lingard berated her for 90 minutes, swore at her, tried to dismiss her by e-mail while she was off sick with work-related stress and harassment caused by him – all after giving her a prize in 2011, two months into her time there.

She felt, "Mr Lingard believed he lost control when I started a relationship and this was the true reason for dismissal".

The tribunal judge read her statement which stated: "Mr Lingard on many occasions told me that he did not want me in a relationship or to have babies."

She accused the firm of "a culture of bullying, oppression, and lack of good systems and support for the employees ...".

Barrister James Bax, for Miss Baker, said: "There was an aggressive culture and a golden time when staff could not talk to each other." He claimed Mr Lingard used blonde Miss Baker as a "distraction" at meetings where important clients "seemed to like" her appearance.

Mr Carstairs overturned his earlier ruling that the law firm could not file a defence.

A full hearing into Miss Baker's claims of sexual harassment, sexual discrimination and unfair dismissal is due at a later date.

Follett Stock claimed in a statement to the West Briton on Thursday: "Kate Baker ... raised no complaint before her dismissal.

"Anyone who knows Follett Stock and our managing partner will recognise her attempted characterisation of our culture and of Chris Lingard as a grotesque distortion of reality.

"Chris is very conscious of discrimination, being severely disabled himself. This makes Ms Baker's decision to base her allegations on supposed discrimination particularly disappointing.

"Of course we deny her allegations, some of which are frankly laughable.

"Her suggestion that our policy of dedicating each morning entirely to our clients' work means that 'nobody is allowed to talk' is a prime example."

It added: "This case is a perfect example of the way in which the law currently favours employees over the legitimate needs of employers."

0
Tweet this article
Report

Comments

  • Profile image for WillH

    by WillH

    Friday, January 18 2013, 1:50PM

    “"This case is a perfect example of the way in which the law currently favours employees over the legitimate needs of employers." - Which has probably made them a load of money in the past! What a stupid comment for a law firm who deal with employment law to make! The law is fine until it backfires on them!”

        Your comments awaiting moderation

        Be the first to comment

        max 4000 characters
         
         
         
         
         
         

        Tell us about your area

        Got some interesting news? Write about it and let your whole community know.

          Write an article