A gay quality assurance worker who was suspended from his job after he complained about homophobic graffiti has won a constructive dismissal claim.
Chris Martin, 31, won a claim of sexual harassment and discrimination against Parkam Foods Ltd in Liversedge, West Yorkshire.

He was suspended after complaining about a pornographic drawing with his name next to it on a toilet wall.

Compensation for Mr Martin, 31, will be decided later this year.

No other complaints

A tribunal ruled Parkam Foods, which produces and supplies poultry goods to supermarkets, failed to investigate Chris Martin's complaints properly or ensure his dignity at work.

After being suspended from his position in November 2005, Mr Martin resigned in protest.

In a written judgement, a tribunal said it found the drawing "offensive and homophobic" and expressed surprise no one else at the firm had complained about the graffiti.

"I hope this shows any other gay people who may be treated in a similar way that, if they stand up for themselves, the law can help them"
Chris Martin

The tribunal ruled Parkam Foods' harassment policy was "completely ineffective" in ensuring that the graffiti did not appear and was not repeated.

It also said that instead of investigating his complaints, the firm repeatedly told him to forget about his grievances and "move forward", and even suggested he have counselling.

'Vindicated'

The judgement said Parkam Foods did not deal with Mr Martin's grievances as forcefully as it may have done and that this was because of "the respondents inbuilt prejudge, even though they may not recognise it themselves."

After reading the judgement, Mr Martin said he had found the experience "very distressing" but felt he had been vindicated.

He said: "I hope this shows any other gay people who may be treated in a similar way that, if they stand up for themselves, the law can help them."

Parkam Foods said a significant amount of resources had been spent trying to resolve the matter.

A statement said: "The company operates a stress policy and procedure which provides for suspension in circumstances where evidence of stress may be a factor.

"This is what our company did. The action by our company in the circumstances followed what we believed to be best practice to protect the health and safety of Mr Martin.

"It is unfortunate that our actions in this respect have been misunderstood."

Courtesy of the BBC