Nirosha Sithirapathy, 31, a lawyer at Oxfordshire-based pharmaceutical company PSI CRO UK Ltd, was told at the hearing by Judge Emma Jane Hawksworth that comments made to her by her boss Martin Schmidt did not amount to harassment, according to court documents seen by Newsweek. Sithirapathy also tried to claim that she was unfairly dismissed from her job, but the judge disagreed.

“l am very disappointed by the tribunal’s decision and am considering lodging an appeal,” Sithirapathy told Newsweek.

The virtual session, which was based at the tribunal court in Reading, South-East England, heard that Sithirapathy began working for the company in 2014. In November 2016, Schmidt, the company’s country manager and chief financial officer, offered her a role at PSI’s Swiss head office that was 120, 000 Swiss Francs ($132,530).

Court documents said she told him she was not interested in the role for personal reasons, the tribunal heard. Schmidt allegedly asked Sithirapathy why she didn’t want to take the job overseas, saying “you are not married, you don’t have children and you do not have a boyfriend.” The judge said that the comment was “very blunt and clumsily put” and made Sithirapathy feel “uncomfortable” and “humiliated.”

According to the court documents, at the same meeting, Schmidt told his employee: “Your age will prevent you from commanding a higher salary” than 120,000 Swiss francs per annum in Switzerland. Sithirapathy claimed this was direct age discrimination and age-related harassment, but the court dismissed it.

Schmidt went on to tell a story to highlight the Swiss office’s “tolerance” of lesbian staff members, the tribunal heard.

In January 2017, Sithirapathy was denied a promotion as she was still young and at the beginning of her career, the tribunal heard. She then complained about this and Schmidt’s earlier comments.

The tribunal heard that Sithirapathy had a change of heart and took a non-legal role as manager of the company’s property portfolio in Zug, Switzerland, an opportunity she told Schmidt in an email “she was very excited about.”

The tribunal heard that a month into the new role, she lost her job because of a “reorganisation of the department.” She then filed a lawsuit against her firing in Switzerland but the Cantonal Court ruled it was not abusive and dismissed her complaint. The British tribunal agreed.

Sithirapathy tried to get her old job back after being fired but she was told she could not as the position had been filled by a new junior lawyer and that there wasn’t the budget for another lawyer. At the tribunal claimed she had been forced out of the job but the judge ruled she was let go by mutual agreement.

Sithirapathy later filed 42 discrimination allegations, sexual harassment, harassment relating to age and/or sexual orientation and victimisation claims to an employment tribunal.

In her ruling, Judge Hawksworth said: “The comments [made by Schmidt] were unfortunate and awkward. However, we bear in mind the importance of not encouraging a culture of hyper-sensitivity or of imposing legal liability to every unfortunate phrase.”

“We have concluded that, in this case, taking into account the context of the discussion, these comments did not cross the line such that they amounted to unlawful harassment.

“The claimant was shocked and the discussion made her uncomfortable, as she did not know how Mr. Schmidt knew personal information about her. However, Mr. Schmidt said, and we accept, that he would have made the same comments to a male employee.

“Mr. Schmidt was not commenting on the claimant’s relationship status or sexual orientation, he was seeking to convey his understanding about the claimant’s family commitments in the UK.”

The judge added that Schmidt spoke “very bluntly” to Sithirapathy, but the court had considered the harassment allegations carefully.

“Some of the comments made to [Sithirapathy] were very unfortunate and clumsy. However, we have concluded that they did not cross the line such as to amount to unlawful harassment,” the judge added.

“We have therefore concluded that the claimant was not subjected to discrimination, harassment or victimisation. Those complaints fail and are dismissed.”