A sexual harassment case against a colleague who texted her asking if she was “ready for your big penetration?” has been dismissed.
Farah Farook claimed that her coworker Ben Fairburn harassed her by sending the message, which he claimed was an autocorrect mistake and that he meant to write ‘presentation’ instead.
Mr Fairburn allegedly played ‘footsy’ with her and made her feel ‘uncomfortable’ by asking her to go for a walk, according to the admin worker.
In the space of three months, Ms Farook, who worked with him at Network Rail’s York office, made 43 sexual harassment allegations against the technician.
However, an employment tribunal ruled against her, stating that the behavior was part of a ‘flirty relationship’ between the two, who ‘objectively showed a mutual intensity’.
The panel discovered that the two exchanged ‘thousands’ of messages, chatted late at night, and Miss Farook frequently initiated contact.
Ms Farook’s sexual harassment claim against Network Rail was dismissed by an employment tribunal, which said the allegations were “completely at odds” with what happened.
They also made sexual innuendos, engaged in’sexual conversation,’ watched a movie at Mr Fairburn’s house, and went on a ‘romantic’ date-like day out.
After their flirty relationship ‘fizzled out,’ Miss Farook filed a sexual harassment complaint, believing Mr Fairburn was ignoring her work requests.
After bringing claims of harassment, sex discrimination, and victimization to an employment tribunal in Newcastle, she has now lost her case against Network Rail.
Miss Farook was inducted at York in May 2020 after being supplied through an agency, and she quickly developed a ‘close friendship’ with Mr Fairburn, according to the tribunal, with colleagues observing them sitting close together all the time.
Messages became’more intense and intimate,’ and they exchanged ‘thousands’ of WhatsApp messages from May to July 2020.
They called each other ‘cheeky sod,’ ‘angel,’ and ‘hiya, trouble,’ according to messages.
‘They objectively showed a mutual intensity and at times a flirtatious relationship,’ according to the tribunal report.
‘Penetration lol what you got on your mind,’ Miss Farook replied, and Mr Fairburn later told her, ‘Best off you didn’t come [to work in York] tbf,’
I couldn’t concentrate on anything. Penetration. ‘It’s like the spell checker set me up there.’
Miss Farook, a Stockton on Tees, County Durham resident,
They went on a day trip to Scarborough, North Yorkshire, ate dinner in Bradford, West Yorkshire, and watched a movie at Mr Fairburn’s house, according to reports.
Their friendship deteriorated in July 2020. Mr. Fairburn expressed his dissatisfaction with the situation. Miss Farook needed more help at work, and she thought she was speaking with her ex-partner.
Her complaint, which included other work-related complaints, was ‘triggered’ by her ‘perception that he was ignoring her work-related requests for help’ on July 29, 2020.
As part of it she said: ‘[He was] playing footsy, touching my hands, massaging my shoulders, touching my legs and asking to go for a walk with him which has led me to feel uncomfortable around him.’
It eventually led to a disciplinary investigation for Mr Fairburn but by the time of the outcome Miss Farook was no longer with Network Rail.
At the employment tribunal, Employment Judge Edmund Beever threw out all her claims.
He said: ‘These facts and the Miss Farook’s concessions in evidence are completely at odds with the her allegations of unwanted conduct.
‘The content of the texts and WhatsApp messages and specifically Miss Farook’s messages, including in material respects occasions where she initiated a conversation, are also completely at odds with her allegations of unwanted conduct.
‘Further, the frequent mutual references to sexual innuendo are at odds with her allegations of unwanted conduct.
‘The tribunal finds that allegations of unwanted conduct… in so far as they refer to text and WhatsApp messages, are misconceived.
‘The text messages were part of a discourse between Miss Farook and Mr Fairburn that demonstrated a friendship, fluctuating in intensity and closeness at times, but not amounting to Mr Fairburn’s unwanted behavior.’