When the dawn of the information age was just starting to crack in Kenya, Aisha (not her real name) was among the few early adopters who waded into the then uncharted waters of computer science.
In 1985, Aisha landed a job with G4S, one of the first companies to embrace information technology locally.
But she left in 1994.
Aisha must have been doing something right, as G4S poached her two years later to fill the vacant position of computer manager.
The second stint unlocked her full potential, and G4S eventually promoted her to IT manager, a role she held until she was sacked in August 2006.
Court records reveal that her sacking was a plot by senior officials of the security firm to cover up the sexual harassment Aisha had endured for close to two years, and which G4S failed to resolve.
Last week, the Court of Appeal found G4S guilty of unlawful termination, ruling that her dismissal was solely to cover up her ordeal at the hands of the individual tasked with protecting employees from workplace challenges like sexual harassment and gender discrimination – the human resource director.
An apology from the director for inappropriate date requests was one of the foundations of a ruling by the High Court against the security firm.
The Court of Appeal has now upheld a finding that G4S did not do enough to resolve the sexual harassment claim when Aisha filed a formal complaint with her supervisor.
But while the verdict was upheld, Aisha’s award has been slashed by half, as the Court of Appeal ruled that one year’s salary is enough compensation in her particular case.
Dominic Ooko, G4S human resources director at the time, had in correspondence aplogised for making inappropriate passes at Aisha, claiming that they were innocent.
But the courts have now held that his intentions did not matter as long as the words he uttered made Aisha uncomfortable.
“In our view, the letter and the formal complaint thereupon made by Aisha were sufficient evidence to illustrate the unwanted nature of Dominic’s conduct, and that the same was communicated to both G4S Security and Dominic,” the Court of Appeal held.
“The evidence of unwanted conduct was clearly proved by the letter of January 20, 2006. The innocence or otherwise of Dominic’s actions are immaterial.”
“In our view, the award for Sh5,928,000 was not supported by the applicable principles we have identified herein above. Our finding in this regard is that a period of one year would have been sufficient for the claimant to secure other employment.
“An award of Sh2,964,000, being the equivalent of her one year’s salary, was therefore adequate and reasonable in the circumstances.”
Aisha’s first documented issues with G4S started in 2003 when her job as IT manager was advertised in national newspapers.
She raised the issue with her superiors but was assured that her job and roles with the company were safe.
Philip Holi emerged the best candidate but was hired as a systems and change manager instead.
Shortly afterwards Mr Ooko invited Aisha for a meeting at the Nairobi Club, with Mr Holi’s appointment as the main agenda.
The meeting was outside working hours on a weekday, but Aisha attended it with the assumption that clear lines would be drawn between her roles and Mr Holi’s.
Mr Ooko was unhappy that Aisha had been dropped off at the Nairobi Club by a G4S driver, arguing that it could spark rumours of a relationship between the two. Aisha insisted that for official events and meetings she would request to be dropped off at the venue by a G4S driver.
At the meeting, Mr Ooko said nothing about Mr Holi’s appointment, save for asking if the then managing director Ken Woods had spoken to her about the same topic.
During the meeting and for the next one year, Mr Ooko would make sexual advances towards Aisha but she would continuously turn him down.
On occasion, Mr Ooko would ask Aisha for assistance with official matters and then offer to thank her by buying her a drink after working hours. Aisha would still turn him down.
Mr Ooko would also make inappropriate comments about her dressing.
At the time, Aisha was furthering her studies at a university and would be dropped off and picked up by an office driver in an informal arrangement.
Mr Ooko started questioning Aisha about the arrangement with drivers, insisting that complaints had been raised by the transport department and its manager.
In January 2006, Aisha would confide in the transport manager, only identified as Joe in court papers, telling him that Mr Ooko was using the informal arrangement with drivers to avenge her refusal to go on dates with him.
The transport manager confronted Mr Ooko, stating that Aisha was uncomfortable with the requests for dates and his sexual advances.
By this time, Mr Holi had been promoted to director of quality and audit, making him Aisha’s supervisor.
On January 11, 2006, Mr Ooko sent an email to Mr Holi, citing sexual harassment claims raised to him by the transport manager.
To resolve the issue, Mr Holi on January 20, 2006 formally requested that Aisha’s arrangement with office drivers continue on the condition that it did not interfere with other official duties.
He added that if Mr Ooko was unhappy with the decision, he was free to escalate the issue to the managing director, Ken Woods, who would give a final verdict.
Despite apologising for the requests and conversations that had made Aisha uncomfortable, Mr Ooko responded to the email by stating he had been manipulated by Aisha. He added that Aisha must have felt victorious because she had managed to smear his name and continue using company vehicles.
Aisha later filed a formal complaint against Mr Ooko and addressed it to Mr Holi.
Under company policy, Mr Ooko should have been handling sexual harassment complaints. But because he was the accused, Mr Holi advised that the issue be resolved by the managing director.
The managing director, Mr Woods, dismissed the case as trivial.
Disappointed with the outcome, Aisha threatened to sue the firm through a demand letter on May 16, 2006.
Between May and August 2006, Aisha was accused of being late to work, going on leave without approval and allowing G4S to use pirated computer software.
She sued the company and Mr Ooko for unlawful termination and was awarded Sh5.9 million by the High Court in 2017. As both G4S and Mr Ooko were found liable for the unlawful dismissal, they were to each contribute to the court award.
The High Court ruled that no evidence was filed to show that Aisha was a poor performer at work, while her sexual harassment complaints and threat to sue G4S seemed to spark the dismissal.
Mr Ooko and G4S appealed against the award, arguing that Aisha had not given enough evidence for the court to arrive at the decision that she was terminated to cover up the sexual harassment complaints.
Court of Appeal judges Wanjiru Karanja, Mumbi Ngugi and Pauline Nyamweya last week held that there were no grounds to interfere with the finding that Aisha was sacked to cover up the sexual harassment claims.
The judges, however, argued that two years’ salary award was on the high side and lowered it to Sh2.9 million, the equivalent of 12 months’ pay. BY DAILY NATION