Asking a female colleague if they are going through the menopause is not ‘inherently offensive’ and does not amount to harassment, an employment tribunal has ruled.
The ruling comes in a new judgement after office worker sued for sex harassment when her male manager asked her ‘is someone going through the change?’
Co-ordinator Lucie Waller also complained that line manager Andrew Gregory told her ‘You’re just acting that way because you’re going through the change’.
She lost her sex harassment case, with an employment tribunal ruling that it is not offensive to make a genuine enquiry to a female colleague to see if they are experiencing the menopause.
The employment tribunal, held in east London, heard she worked as a programme co-ordinator for Swann Engineering Group from April 2022.
The company is based in Braintree, Essex, and provides structural metalwork.
It was heard that Ms Waller told her line manager, Mr Gregory, in early 2024 that she was experiencing some health issues and had tests done to check whether her symptoms were due to the onset of the perimenopause.
East London Employment Tribunal found that the menopause comments, when ‘taken together’ with other matters, was conduct ‘likely to destroy or seriously damage’ trust between Ms Waller and the company
Ms Waller let her manager know when the tests turned out to be negative.
In June 2024, she lost her train of thought while speaking to Mr Gregory.
The tribunal heard: ‘(Ms Waller) alleges that (Mr Gregory) said to her ‘Is someone going through the change?’ thereby referring to the menopause.
‘Later, on the same day, he is alleged to have made the following comment in a busy open plan office: ‘You’re just acting that way because you’re going through the change’.’
The tribunal found that Ms Waller was not visibly upset by the first comment, and that this was why Mr Gregory made a similar comment later on the same day.
She later went to the ladies toilet where she became upset and emotional due to the comments and because of another personal matter.
Mr Gregory told the tribunal that there was a discussion about the menopause that day, but he couldn’t remember making the comments Ms Waller alleged he had.
He said that Health and Safety Officer Ellie Parnham had started the conversation around the menopause in the office because ‘she had chosen to be open about the symptoms’ to ‘encourage others to speak up about their experiences’.
The tribunal found: ‘As a result, we find that it was not unusual for menopause issues to be raised in office conversations.’
Ms Waller made a complaint about Mr Gregory’s comments relating to the menopause to the HR manager, who subsequently informed Mr Gregory.
He told the tribunal he found this complaint ‘abhorrent’.
Mr Gregory then began ‘cold shouldering’ Ms Waller, who despite being awarded a pay rise that April, was then accused of underperforming and moved to the ‘noisy’, ‘smelly’ and ‘dusty’ office next door to a factory.
She resigned in July 2024, saying that she felt like she was left with no choice but to resign after her sex discrimination and bullying allegations were not dealt with adequately.
The menopause comments alone were not enough to win a claim of constructive unfair dismissal, Employment Judge Bruce Gardiner said.
‘The comments contributed to some extent to a course of conduct amounting to a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence’, the judge said.
‘By themselves they would not have been sufficient to amount to a breach of that term’.
But the judge said that when the comments were ‘taken together’ with two other matters – Ms Waller being placed on a performance improvement plan and being moved to a ‘noisy and smelly’ office next to a workshop – was conduct ‘likely to destroy or seriously damage the trust and confidence’ between Ms Waller and the company.
As a result, she won a claim for constructive unfair dismissal relating to her being forced into resigning because her boss ‘cold shouldered’ her when he found out she complained about him.
The judge also partially found in Ms Waller’s favour over a claim for victimisation.
However, Judge Gardiner dismissed Ms Waller’s harassment claim in its entirety.
Judge Gardiner said that it was ‘not reasonable’ for her to regard Mr Gregory’s comments as ‘violating her dignity’.
Judge Gardiner said Ms Waller was ‘unduly sensitive’ at the time due to personal matters.
The judge continued: ‘Most pertinently, we note that staff in the office had spoken about the menopause in the past, prompted by the symptoms that Ms Parnham had herself been experiencing and by Ms Parnham’s desire to foster a culture where menopause symptoms were spoken about more openly.
‘(Ms Waller) had shared with Mr Gregory that she had undergone tests to see if she was undergoing the perimenopause; and had also shared that these tests had proved negative.
‘Therefore, he was not making fun of some aspect of (Ms Waller)’s overall health.
‘The comment itself was not inherently offensive, nor was it made to demean (Ms Waller) or in an attempt to get others to laugh at her.’
The amount of compensation she will receive for her successful claims is going to be decided in early 2026.