IT analyst fired for harassment after telling a female colleague about her presence in his dreams

Introduction

A recent Employment Tribunal judgment has provided a valuable insight on assessing philosophical beliefs, particularly in the context of unfair dismissal claims. In Mr Rich Daudet v Computacenter (UK) Limited, the Tribunal reviewed the merits of Mr Daudet’s claims against his employer following his dismissal for harassment. Importantly, the Tribunal had to decide whether the Claimant’s belief in prophetic dreams could amount to a philosophical belief under the Equality Act.

Case Background

The Claimant, Mr Daudet, was employed by Computacenter, a technology services company. Having joined the company in 2008, the Claimant described himself as a black Christian, and was working as a Senior Computer Analyst when issues with his employment arose in 2022.

The Claimant was convinced in his own ability to see the future through his dreams, and apparently envisioned meeting a women named Vanessa in a dream in 2021. In August 2022, Mr Daudet was introduced to a newly hired female colleague Ms Vanessa De Souza, and following a seemingly harmless interaction proceeded to message her over the following months in an apparent attempt to forge a connection.

In October 2022, Mr Daudet sent Ms De Souza a message about his dreams of her before they met, declaring how he had been “dreaming about her for over a year” and she had been “haunting” his dreams. In his message, he explained how he wanted to tell her something in person, but was afraid of how she might react. The messages made Ms De Souza feel uncomfortable, and she decided not to respond after flagging the messages with her line manager.

Despite the lack of a response, Mr Daudet sent Ms De Souza another email, explaining how he had been writing about her for 11 months, and stating he did not want her to report him for “pestering” her. The email attached a number of poems apparently written by the Claimant, some of which appeared to contain romantic and obsessive language. Ms De Souza felt alarmed by the message’s content, and after a report was raised to HR the company carried out an internal investigation.

When a disciplinary hearing was conducted in November 2022, Mr Daudet defended his actions by explaining that his belief in prophetic dreams compelled him to share the messages, despite the danger of misinterpretation. The decision maker concluded that his actions were unwanted and created a hostile environment for his colleague. As the Claimant would not have sent the same message to a male colleague, his actions met the definition of harassment on the protected characteristic of sex. As a result, the Claimant was dismissed without notice for gross misconduct on 6 December 2022, with the offer of an appeal. Mr Daudet brought claims of unfair dismissal, race and religious discrimination, and harassment against the company, which claims were heard in the Employment Tribunal in October 2024.

Tribunal Findings

The Tribunal made the following key findings in relation to the claims. In reviewing the Claimant’s dismissal, the Tribunal determined that the company had a genuine belief the conduct amounted to harassment, the investigation was fair, and the decision based on objective evidence. Considering the nature of the misconduct, dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses, so the dismissal was not unfair.

To prove direct discrimination under the Equality Act, a claimant must demonstrate that they were treated less favourably due to a protected characteristic. The Tribunal ruled that the decision-makers at the company were not influenced by either the Claimant’s race or religion in reaching their conclusion, as a hypothetical comparator – an employee of a different race or religion engaging in the same conduct – would not have been treated any differently. There being no evidence that the disciplinary process itself was a form of harassment against Mr Daudet, his harassment claims were also dismissed.

Belief in prophetic dreams

The Tribunal had to determine whether the Claimant’s belief in prophetic dreams could be a protected belief under the Equality Act. In order to be protected, a philosophical belief must be genuinely held, concern a substantial aspect of human life and behaviour, and attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness and importance. While Mr Daudet’s belief in his psychic ability to predict the future through his dreams was genuinely held, it was no more than a “belief in his own particular abilities”. Such a narrowly focused belief does not attain a sufficient level of importance to qualify, and on the claimant’s own evidence, the belief also did not influence his way of life, meaning it did not meet the requirements of a protected characteristic.

Lessons for Employers

The case provides a useful insight for employers. Crucially, harassment does not require intent, as actions do not have to be carried out with the purpose of offending another person; harassment is judged by the perception of the person who is subject to the actions. In this scenario, the Claimant’s colleague was understandably uncomfortable upon receiving the messages, especially considering the social distance of the Claimant and lack of any explanation (notably an omission of details concerning his belief in prophetic dreams). In the circumstances, it was reasonable for the Claimant to feel alarmed and overwhelmed upon receiving the messages. Examples such as this demonstrate the value of training in relation to workplace conduct: employers should define clear boundaries for professional interactions and explain how to recognise and report improper behaviour.

Importantly, employers are still required to conduct fair and thorough investigations, even when misconduct appears to be immediately evident. In this case, the employer allowed the employee to respond to allegations and considered the relevant evidence before applying the facts to company policy. After an appropriate sanction was decided, this was communicated effectively and a fair appeal process offered to the employee. In such situations, harassment will usually qualify as gross misconduct, and despite consideration of the Claimant’s length of service and clean disciplinary record, dismissal was still within the range of reasonable responses open to the employer. By following best practices, employers can protect themselves from legal risks while fostering a safe and respectful workplace.

For more information on the contents of this article or advice on the issues raised, please contact us to speak to a member of our Employment team.