A male sales executive who sued after hearing his workmates make sexist remarks about women has won £3,400.
Matthew Davies, a car salesman, left his job at White Dove Garages after three weeks due to the ‘toxic’ atmosphere in the office, an employment tribunal in Cardiff has heard.
A judge ruled that offensive comments ‘violate the dignity’ of staff and are a breach of equality laws, regardless of gender.
Now, Mr Davies has won £3,429 in compensation after Employment Judge Rachel Harfield said the comments – including a woman being labelled as ‘rough around the edges’ – created an ‘offensive environment’ for him.
Judge Harfield said: ‘The comments were not targeted at him at all or anyone associated with him. [Mr Davies] was not involved in the conversation itself.
‘We do, however, find that the conduct had the effect of violating [his] dignity and creating an offensive environment for him.
‘Whilst the comments were not directed at [him] and he was not a participant in the conversation, he was sat there in the hub as part of that sales team.
‘Those involved in the conversations decided to have them in the full knowledge that [he] may overhear.
Matthew Davies sued his former employers at White Dove Garages (pictured) in Cardiff after hearing his colleagues make sexist remarks about women
‘That someone who hears it may take offence to it is the risk you take by choosing to have that kind of conversation in open earshot in a workplace.
She added that as an employee, Mr Davies was entitled not to ‘want to be exposed to language in the workplace’ – even if it was intended as a joke, or humorous exchange between colleagues.
Mr Davies began working at White Dove Garages, a SEAT and Cupra dealer, in Cardiff in April 2024.
He had worked in the car industry since 1990 before staring his own company in 2004.
A previous tribunal heard that Mr Davies was part of a sales team for the Spanish car brands in a communal office, ‘connected to the Sales Manager’s office and the showroom.’
It found Mr Davies and the company’s business manager ‘did not hit it off’ from the beginning.
Mr Davies asked to speak to the manager to clear the air shortly after he began working, however, was told that ‘nobody liked him’ or ‘wanted to work with him’.
He was also told to ‘reconsider his position’ or, ‘better still leave’.
Mr Davies has won £3,429 in compensation (Pictured: Cardiff Employment Tribunal)
Mr Davies highlighted his concerns about communication within the office – specifically comments of a sexual nature.
He said: ‘I also raised my concerns in relation to the daily unwanted conduct of a sexual nature.
‘The racism, misogyny, homophobia and the abhorrent tone within the sales office/hub all of which had the purpose or effect of violating dignity and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive environment.’
Mr Davies alleged he was forced to listen to his colleagues discuss oral sex, and heard women being described as ‘rough around the edges,’ and the ‘local ride in the area’.
He said some men were also described as ‘gay boys’, while one colleague was said to have asked if a woman was a ‘bit of a sl*g’.
Mr Davies subsequently left the job three weeks after starting and sued the dealership for harassment of a sexual nature and sexual orientation.
He won £3,000 for injury to feelings plus interest, totalling £3,429.
Judge Harfield said White Doves Garage argued the context of their working environment is ‘important,’ and that the language used was among a team who were ‘comfortable and relaxed,’ in each other’s company.
He said: ‘It is submitted that there is an earthy coarseness to their humour and banter. It is not in a customer facing area.
‘It is said it is relevant that the language was kept within the group and was not directed at the claimant or anyone connected to him.
‘It is said there was no intent to offend or cause hurt and it is at a times a coarse and unrefined attempt at banter between friends.
‘[White Dove Garages] says it should have been clear to the [Mr Davies] that no offence was intended.
‘In our judgment it was a genuinely held concern by [Mr Davies]. He did not like the language that was being used by his colleagues. He found it offensive and unprofessional.’