News and Insights

Ms Wango brought sex and race discrimination claims against her employer and her superior Mr Moniz:

1. Sexual harassment contrary to Article 28(2A) of the Discrimination (Jersey) Law 2013 (“DJL”)
2. Harassment contrary to Article 28(2) of the DJL
3. Victimisation contrary to Article 27 of the DJL

Ms Wango detailed a number of incidents involving Mr Moniz.The claims for harassment and victimisation were dismissed. The claim for sexual harassment (Article 28(2A)) succeeded and Ms Wango was awarded £2,750.000 in compensation.

In relation to the claim of sexual harassment, allegations included that Mr Moniz had come up behind Ms Wango and held her waist whilst he was behind her. Ms Wango said that “it frightened her and that she told Mr Moniz that he should never touch her again.” Ms Wango gave evidence that within her culture (the Bantu culture):

“…a woman’s waist was an intimate part of the body and to touch it was certainly sexual, ‘taboo’ and amounted to a serious sexual assault, if it was touched and the touching was uninvited.”

The Tribunal considered CCTV footage, from which they concluded that the sexual harassment described by Ms Wango had occurred. They noted Ms Wango’s reaction, which was consistent with how she described she had been made to feel. The Tribunal did not consider Ms Wango’s arguments around the significance of the waist in the Bantu culture to be relevant, saying:

“[It] is an uncontroversial and indeed axiomatic proposition that touching anyone, when they do not want to be touched, is entirely unacceptable. It is the more unacceptable if it happens in the workplace and in the view of the Tribunal aggravated if the person doing the unwanted touching, lays their hands on a more junior employee for whom they are responsible…[It] is not Ms Wango’s ethnic heritage that makes Mr Moniz’s conduct a serious issue. It is Mr Moniz’s conduct. The Tribunal considers that this proposition can be straight-forwardly tested by asking itself the question, would it have made any difference if Ms Wango was white and from Trinity? It seems to the Tribunal that the answer is plainly not and that the focus of the Tribunal should be on the conduct of Mr Moniz and in the view of the Tribunal, what Mr Moniz did to Ms Wango would have been equally serious if he had done it to any other woman or man, if the conduct was unwanted for the same reason…[It] is not acceptable for any person to position themselves behind another…and grab them by the waist. Particularly not in a work environment where the recipient of such conduct is junior to, or is directly managed by, the perpetrator of such conduct.”