• Wion
  • /Trending
  • /Yelling at a 54-year-old woman and firing her due to her menopause cost this boss $27,000

Yelling at a 54-year-old woman and firing her due to her menopause cost this boss $27,000

Yelling at a 54-year-old woman and firing her due to her menopause cost this boss $27,000

Leigh Best

A boss in Britain had to pay a 54-year-old woman $27,000 for yelling at her and later firing her due to her menopause.

The incident of sexist discrimination happened at pet food store Embark on Raw in Essex, England.

Shop owner David Fletcher had a disagreement with his employee Leigh Best during which he shouted she ''must be in her menopause.''

Add WION as a Preferred Source

Not only this, after making the ''inappropriate and derogatory'' remark ''at the top of his voice'' he refused to hear her side of the story and said "I don't want to hear about it" when a customer mentioned her having a "hot flush".

Once the customer left, Fletcher "continued to pursue the topic" and this had the effect of "creating a humiliating environment for her [Best] at work", the tribunal heard.

She felt so embarrased and insulted by the whole ordeal that she sued him in court for the sexist statement.

A local court ruled in her favour and asked her boss to compensate her for being offensive.

Best said she was "very happy" with the result. She has gone on to set up her own company - RawKings, which sells premium dog and cat food.

The tribunal, headed by Employment Judge Bernice Elgot, said: "Mr Fletcher invaded the claimant's privacy, broached a highly sensitive topic for her and acted tactlessly in directly asking her, as an employee having the protected characteristic of sex as a woman, whether she was menopausal.

"He asked that question even after... she had made it quite clear she did not wish to participate in any such discussion.

"We are satisfied that part of the reason for the company's decision to dismiss Mrs Best is that she made a significant allegation of sexism and ageism against Mr David Fletcher."

"She was intervening to protect herself, her family, her close friends and contacts, the customers and suppliers of [the Fletcher's] business and the wider public," the tribunal said.

(With inputs from agencies)