Christian Horner

On what basis do you think that?

If an ET says yes you were wronged then that’s formal recognition. Brand Horner spunkfinger will formally be damaged rather than debatable stuff.

Now it's his neighbours, it never rains but it pours. - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13240211/...

Very few cases like this make it to an ET….theres a reason for that.

In addition, Horner is a very public figure, so he’ll be doing anything to make this go away, not have his dirty washing aired in public.

So if it was just the complainant against Red Bull, they’d have waved enough at her to forget her principles.

I hear reliably that she’s not short of money, but there’s other ways and means to appease/subtly threaten someone away from a court room.

Being part of a bigger power play means she has more people in her corner and probably more/better lawyers.

It’s not impossible that she’s on a one-person crusade against CH and will not be swayed, but I’m saying it’s highly unlikely.

The focus of an ET is a remedy, conciliation. It’s not a celebrity hang out to settle scores.

https://www.womblebonddickinson.com/uk/insights/ti...

ET is a long and winding road with plenty of obstacles to navigate before it even gets to court. One of the final steps will be for the claimant to set out their preferred remedy. Payouts, although potentially high, are a fraction of the maximums. It also takes a long time and the ET could decide that there’s no merit in the case and both sides should settle. ACAS will be difficult in this case for the claimant.

RB have nothing to fear with an ET because this is obviously a power play that will be obvious from space. This is just a tactic to keep this case topical but most have already moved on, because people follow sport for sport and soon get bored of this type of nonsense.

Yes, she appears to want her day in court, and for Horny’s behaviour to be a matter of public record rather than simply suspicion and conjecture. That she has others in the company supporting her, and seemingly doesn’t need the money, both make that day in court more likely to happen.

All you need is a certificate from ACAS. You don't have to take part in any ACAS conciliation or tell them what you want to get one.

And your expertise is?

You are mistakenly assuming that any corporate power plays that have gone on have much relevance to the PA's case. It really doesn't.
A defence to a sexual harassment charge of "I did sexually harass her, but it doesn't matter because there was some politics going on" really isn't going to fly.
Nor would a defence of "Yes, I was sexually harassing her, but this only came out because of some internal RB politics, you weren't supposed to know about this, and I told her to delete the messages".

They are two completely separate issues.
Even if some third party is using CH's behaviour as political ammunition, it in no way absolves CH of being a scummy, greasy sex pest with no game.

A tribunal won't be bothered about the post factum use of CH's behaviour as a political axe, they'll be looking at CH's behaviour. Did it pass the threshold for being considered sexual harassment and how bad was it?

I don't think they'd have any problem getting an ET to accept the case. On the face of it, it looks about as clear a case of documented sexual harassment and sexual coercion as you'd ever see.
ACAS won't be difficult either. It's just mediation to see if agreement can be reached without it going to court. How would that be difficult?

All it needs for it to reach an employment tribunal is for the PA to stick to her guns, and no agreement be reached during mediation.

The bigger question is why you're so invested in CH not seeing some consequences for his actions?

None of that seems to form a logical train of thought or coherent argument.

Just because there is some multi £billion shenanigans going on does not in anyway absolve CH of his behaviour. It may have come to light at the same time, or even because of, the political goings on but that in no way affects the facts of the PA's case.

If the messages are real, and I see no reason to not believe them to be, then it seems fair to surmise:

• CH repeatedly pressured his PA for sexual acts after repeatedly being told no
• CH threatened her job, and seemed to take actions to make it untenable
• CH will claim to like coco pops to slime his way into his PAs pants

Even if the reason it came to public attention was a leak due to internal RB politics, it does not make CH any less guilty.
The only way this does not reach a tribunal is if the PA accepts a payoff.
So far, she does not seem interested in a payout. I can only think of two reasons for that. She either wants more money, or she wants some kind of justice where CH is formally recognised for what he's done or faces consequences. RB can deal with it and make it go away if she'd accept more money, but if she is not willing to accept no consequences for CH, then RB have nothing they can do to avoid it getting to court other than sacking CH.

As it happens, an ET *can* force them to take her back. It is a power they have. They won't because the circumstances here dictate it's impractical. What they can do is provide two things; an impartial declaration that her rights were abused (that is important to some people and may be the only way she can save her career in this case) and financial compensation.

There is no rule that she must accept a settlement offer instead of going to ET, even if that offer is higher than the maximum she could be awarded there.