Banker who was harassed by 'goat' jibes in line for a big pay-out

A city investment banker who was described by colleagues as a "tethered goat" - because they said she attracted male clients - has won her claim for sexual harassment and is now in line for a six figure compensation payout.

Carina Coleman, 30, from London, the only woman in her office, said she had been humiliated in front of workmates and clients by comments made about her breasts and her period pains.

Yesterday, an employment tribunal sitting in London ruled that Ms Coleman had been victimised and unfairly dismissed. But she lost her claim that she had been a victim of sexual discrimination and unlawful deduction of wages.

Ms Coleman, who earned £350,000 a year, making her the highest-paid employee in her department, claimed she was subjected to months of abuse by colleagues who feared she would blow the whistle on unethical deals at the bank.

A "highly appreciated" and "well-liked" employee, Ms Coleman told the tribunal that she was excluded from key meetings and cheated out of a £150,000 bonus before she resigned in March 2001.

She said she was also subjected to comments of a sexual nature.

The tribunal was told that on one occasion a colleague commented on the size of her breasts and on another she was described as a "tethered goat" - a reference to her being "sexual bait" for male clients.

Under cross-examination she admitted she had sent raunchy e-mails to her colleagues and had been drawn into the office culture of "telling dirty jokes". She told the tribunal: "I believe I was considered someone with a good sense of humour. I sent e-mail jokes I thought were funny and I know my colleagues found them funny."

One e-mail sent to colleagues involved the former US president Bill Clinton asking for sex. Another featured nude pictures of the Hollywood actor Brad Pitt in which his modesty was only preserved by a computer-generated leaf which could be removed at the click of a mouse.

After she left the bank she launched her claim against both the bank and a former colleague. Neither can be named for legal reasons and were referred to during the hearing as Mr X and Bank Y.

On one occasion she said she was "mortified" after mistakenly forwarding a racy e-mail to the male colleague who she claims was her chief persecutor. "Mr X said to me, 'Carina, that is a very interesting joke you have just sent'. I recall going red in the face and saying, 'I cannot believe I have forwarded that to Mr X'."

The tribunal rejected the claims against her former colleague but upheld two claims against the bank: victimisation and unlawful dismissal.

The tribunal heard this week heard how Ms Coleman joined the bank in November 1997 and worked her way up to the post of principal in the London office's corporate finance and investment department. Despite her rise through the company, her barrister, Alan Newman QC, told the tribunal at Woburn Place in central London that months of bullying prompted her to go sick in June 2001. She resigned two months later suffering from a depressive illness, Mr Newman told the hearing.

After the hearing Ms Coleman said: "This ruling vindicates the effort of the last two-and-a-half years in standing up to Bank Y. Whilst I am disappointed not to have succeeded in all my claims, the fact that the tribunal recognised Mr X's behaviour and has ruled in my favour acknowledges the principle for which I fought. I would not recommend that anybody takes on lightly the onerous and expensive undertaking of suing a wealthy corporate company."

Paul Goulding QC, appearing for the bank, claimed in his closing submissions this week that Ms Coleman was "vindictive, scheming and manipulative" and motivated only by a "festering resentment" towards her employer. He said she was prone to "misconception and over-reaction" and after a four-week hearing had shown herself to be "reckless" with the truth. Her claims, he added, were "baseless".

Gillian Howard, of Howard & Howard Solicitors, representing the bank, said that Ms Coleman had only won on victimisation because she was put on sick pay in the month leading to her resignation rather than on full statutory pay. A separate hearing will determine her damages award.