A recruitment director who rejected her male boss’ sexual advances after swapping raunchy text messages with him has won a sexual harassment claim.
Goran Hankic climbed into bed with Georgina Roberts after the pair exchanged a string of messages about erotic romance novel Fifty Shades of Grey which ended in them both admitting they were ‘turned on’, an employment tribunal in Leeds heard.
The conversation had begun with Mr Hankic consoling Mrs Roberts after she had broken up with her wife but became sexually charged after she asked him: ‘Do you know I fancy both?’- despite him being present at her wedding, the tribunal heard.
A month after the conversation Mr Hankic got into bed with Mrs Roberts and ‘grabbed’ her breasts following a work social.
When the managing director’s advances were not reciprocated, he stormed out and became ‘hostile’ towards her at work, the tribunal was told.
Boss, Goran Hankic (pictured), climbed into bed with Georgina Roberts – recruitment director – after the pair exchanged a string of messages about erotic romance novel Fifty Shades of Grey which ended in them both admitting they were ‘turned on’
In a bitter campaign Mr Hankic delegated work away from Mrs Roberts and completely ‘blanked’ her – when they had previously declared themselves to be each other’s ‘best friends’.
Mrs Roberts is now in line for compensation after winning claims of unfair dismissal and sexual harassment with a judge ruling the ‘die was cast’ for her after she rejected his sexual advances.
The hearing heard the two set up recruitment company Kapia Partners in September 2020 having previously been colleagues at another firm.
In September 2020 Mrs Roberts got married to her wife and Mr Hankic attended the ceremony as a guest.
However, the panel heard after a ‘short and unhappy’ marriage, the couple split in July 2022.
It was heard Mrs Roberts was ‘profoundly affected’ by the breakup and was not performing as effectively in her role because of it.
Mr Hankic was ‘very supportive’ of her during the time of her marital difficulties, the tribunal was told.
In WhatsApp exchanges he called her his ‘best friend’ and urged her to speak to him if needed.
In messages in August 2022, Mr Hankic mentioned plans of going to Florida with Mrs Roberts to celebrate her birthday, before she thanked him for being a ‘rock for me’.
It was heard the messages then turned ‘flirtatious’, with her telling him: ‘I tend to fall in love with a person rather than their gender’.
‘She said to [Mr Hankic], ‘Do you know I fancy both?’ ‘ the tribunal heard. ‘[He] replied, ‘no’.
‘The messaging then turned to the subject of sex with mention of the erotic fiction book Fifty Shades of Grey. [Mr Hankic] introduced the topic [Mrs Roberts] did not shut down this part of the discussion and willingly participated in it.
‘Later in the messaging [he] said that he thought that a line had been crossed in the conversation with which [Mrs Roberts] agreed.
‘[She] asked: ‘Can you look at me in the same way again?’ [He] replied ‘If you could see my face right now.’ [She] messaged, ‘I’m a bit turned on’ to which [he] replied, ‘me too’.
‘[Mrs Roberts] messaged: ‘sleeping right now is going to be difficult.’ To which [he] replied, ‘I’m actually very frustrated right now.’ [She] said, ‘I’m sure there are things both of us can do in the comfort of our own personal space.’
The following month there was a work social at the Otley Run – a popular pub crawl in Leeds – which continued at Mr Hankic’s house in the city.
Rather than return home to York, Mrs Roberts stayed the night, going to bed at 1.30am.
She texted a friend saying ‘everybody is bloody taking cocaine like it’s normal. Not my bag, no pun intended’.
At around 5.30am, she said Mr Hankic ‘climbed into bed and hugged me from behind waking me up’.
‘I had no intention of any sexual relationship with him,’ she said.
Mrs Roberts said she ‘shrugged off’ his sexual advances, as he continued to try and hug me from behind and ‘grabbed’ her breasts.
Mr Hankic became ‘visibly frustrated’ when she made it clear she was ‘not interested’ and left the bedroom.
Giving evidence, Mrs Roberts said she initially didn’t report it as she had ‘put it down to a drunken mistake’ and hoped to talk things through.
But the panel heard Mr Hankic’s ‘deportment towards [Mrs Roberts] changed significantly’ at work.
Upon her return to work, she was told she did not need to attend management meetings and he separately criticised her for arriving to work looking ‘worse for wear’ and with dog hair on her clothes.
The tribunal heard after a two week leave of absence in the early part of October 2022, Mr Hankic ‘blanked’ Mrs Roberts upon her return.
In November 2022, she approached him and asked why he was behaving how he was, to which he responded: ‘You are the victim and you always play the victim.’
She submitted a formal grievance and a second where she offered the ‘only explanation’ for his change in behaviour was because she rejected his sexual advances.
In December 2022 she was was paid her final salary and dismissed.
Mrs Roberts has now won her claims of unfair and wrongful dismissal and several sex harassment claims.
The panel found Mr Hankic’s ‘change in demeanour’ would have been ‘highly unlikely’ due to the pair’s ‘very close friendship’ had it not been for his rejection.
Employment Judge Jonathan Brain said: ‘[Mr Hankic] was very supportive of [Mrs Roberts] up to September 2022.
‘His whole deportment and manner towards her then changed.
‘He could hardly have been more supportive of her before that date but became increasingly hostile towards her after it.
‘There can be no other rational explanation for his change in demeanour than her rejection of his sexual conduct.’
He continued: ‘[Mr Hankic] had effectively delegated away [Mrs Robert]’s role.
‘[His] conduct in making two passes at her after he got into bed with her reasonably had the effect of violating her dignity and then of creating an intimidating environment for her.
‘The violation of her dignity took place that night.
‘As we conclude, this led to the creation of an intimidating environment for her within the workplace thereafter.
‘The tribunal has little hesitation in finding that [Mr Hankic]’s conduct towards her was of a sexual nature.
‘He had not and would not act as he did towards a male employee.
‘He wanted a relationship with her as he was attracted to her as she is female. Thus, the conduct relates to her sex.’
A remedy hearing to decide Mrs Roberts’ compensation will take place at a later date.
