Who? Juliet Dehghan, head of employment and family law at Corries in York.


Why is she in the news? Represented Chris Martin, a homosexual worker who won his case for constructive dismissal after he claimed he had been humiliated by pornographic and homophobic graffiti scrawled on the lavatory wall of his workplace. For a period, Mr Martin's name appeared next to the graffiti. Mr Martin worked as a quality assurance assistant with Parkham Foods and complained about the graffiti, which his employers then failed to remove. He was repeatedly told to forget the complaint and 'move forward.' When he persisted in asking why his complaint was not being dealt with, he was accused of harassing the respondent. The tribunal found the company's harassment policy was ineffective and, in failing to investigate the grievance with due diligence, it had failed to comply with its own procedures. The tribunal will consider the issue of compensation at a later date. A spokesman for Parkham Foods said the company operated a 'no tolerance' anti-discrimination policy, and treated all employees in the same way regardless of their sex, marital status, race, ethnic origin, religion or belief, sexual orientation, age or disability.



Background: Law degree at the University of Western Australia and articles with a firm in Perth, before completing the qualified lawyers' transfer test and being admitted on the roll of England and Wales in 1994. After working at several firms in the north of England, she joined Corries in 2005.



Route to the case: 'It was a local referral.'



Thoughts on the case: 'Discrimination at work on the grounds of sexual orientation was outlawed three years ago. Despite this, this case and others I am working on show there is evidence that some employers are not complying with the law. Homophobia in the work place is real. Employers need to recognise this and to deal with it appropriately. Even firms with written procedures in place can fall foul of the legislation. They need to put these procedures into practice. In this case, the employers' response was found to be "totally inadequate". Furthermore, the tribunal found that it was "in-built prejudice" that prevented the employer from being objective and fair. Employers can take steps to protect themselves and there can be a defence to these accusations. Employers need to be aware of their obligations and to ensure that they act appropriately.'



Dealing with the media: 'Although I have dealt with the local media in the past, this case went national and that was a new experience for me. The press coverage was supportive of my client, and it became important after the judgment because he wanted to show others faced with similar problems that where there is discrimination the law can do something about it.'



Catherine Baksi