Sommelier Who Quit Over Sexual Harassment Claims Loses Tribunal Case

A leading wine specialist who resigned after being accused of sexually harassing two women at a corporate dinner has failed in an unfair dismissal claim.

Jake Crimmin was alleged to have made guests uncomfortable through inappropriate remarks and unwanted touching.

The sommelier left his position with major international winery Gallo before a disciplinary investigation had concluded, arguing that the outcome had already been decided.

Mr Crimmin had previously worked at L’Enclume, the three-Michelin-star restaurant in Cumbria’s Lake District.

A tribunal heard that he joined E & J Gallo Winery in August 2022.

Based in California, E & J Gallo is the world’s largest family-owned winery and has its UK headquarters in Uxbridge. The company is estimated to generate annual revenue of approximately $5.3billion.

Mr Crimmin worked for the company’s European operation as a luxury fine wine ambassador on its ‘Luxury’ team.

The tribunal was told he was suspended in February 2025 after Gallo received allegations that he had sexually harassed two women at a corporate function.

The women said Mr Crimmin made inappropriate comments and touched them inappropriately during a food-pairing dinner hosted by Gallo and drinks company Molson Coors at the Radisson Red hotel near Heathrow in January 2025.

One woman, who has not been named, said she was discussing her engagement and explaining how she had met her fiancé when Mr Crimmin allegedly told her he ‘wished he had met her on a dating app’ before placing his hand on her thigh.

She further alleged that he reached underneath her seat and moved his hand up her thigh to ‘where it meets her bum’.

The second woman said Mr Crimmin placed a hand on her back and moved it down to the ‘small of her back’. She also alleged that he touched her thigh while they were seated together in a booth.

She said he called her ‘beautiful’ and asked whether she was told that ‘all the time’. She replied: ‘Definitely not at work.’

Mr Crimmin rejected all the allegations during an investigation meeting, although several people reportedly said they had seen aspects of his behaviour.

In an unfair dismissal claim against E & J Gallo Winery at Watford Employment Tribunal, he argued that his employers had been seeking to remove him. He pointed to an email from the investigator to another colleague which stated: ‘Good news! Jake Crimmin officially resigned this morning!’

An email sent to Mr Crimmin said: ‘The organisation has decided it is necessary to conduct an investigation into your actions at a Gallo/Molson Coors wine and food pairing dinner at the Raddison Red Hotel in Heathrow on January 15, 2025, at which it is alleged that you made inappropriate comments to two females who work for Molson Coors and made them uncomfortable by touching them inappropriately.’

Mr Crimmin told the winery that he was experiencing anxiety following a meeting and needed time to consider his options. He said he feared returning to work would be difficult after the allegations had been made.

MORE ON THIS: Why China’s Economy May Never Overtake the US as Growth Slows

He was informed that a disciplinary meeting would take place, but the winery said it could not predict the outcome of the process and stressed that it operated a zero-tolerance policy on sexual harassment.

The following day, Mr Crimmin sent his resignation to the winery because he said it had been made clear to him the way the process would go.

Investigator Kelly Gomez emailed a colleague that day to say, ‘Good news! Jake Crimmin officially resigned this morning!’

Edouard Baijot, the international director, said: ‘I am saddened to see a member of our Luxury team leaving the boat but his current position was no longer tenable, so he did the right choice for his career and future.’

At tribunal, Employment Judge Patrick Quill said the zero tolerance policy mentioned to Mr Crimmin did not mean he would not receive a fair hearing.

He said: ‘Having a zero tolerance policy to sexual harassment is not, in principle, different to having a zero tolerance policy to some other type of misconduct.

‘For example, some employers might have a “zero tolerance” policy towards theft from the employer.

‘However, that does not imply that every time an allegation of theft is made the employee will be dismissed and it does not imply that the outcome (namely a decision that the employee has committed the theft) has been predetermined as of the point in time that they are first notified that there is said to be a case to answer.

‘I consider that the distinction just mentioned is an obvious one, and [Mr Crimmin] did not have to be a lawyer or HR expert to understand it, and that he did understand it.’

Judge Quill said the comments made by his colleagues after he had resigned were irrelevant.

He said: ‘The fact that Ms Gomez was pleased when she found out that [he] had resigned is largely irrelevant.

‘[He] did not resign because of her reaction to his resignation; that is a matter of simple chronology. However, and in any event, she was the person conducting the investigation, and was not going to be the ultimate decision maker.

‘Edouard Baijot’s comments are even less relevant. Again, his comments are after [he] had already resigned (and so were not the cause of the resignation).

‘However, in effect, he simply says the same thing that [Mr Crimmin] has said, namely that [his] resignation was the best thing for [his] career.’

Judge Quill added: ‘Finally, in relation to [Mr Crimmin’s] suggestion that there was an improper motive and that actually the true reason for his (alleged) dismissal was redundancy, that is a very far-fetched assertion with no evidence to support it.

‘Apart from anything else, it would probably have been cheaper to carry out a redundancy exercise and dismiss [him] by reason of redundancy than to carry out this investigation into alleged gross misconduct.

‘However, regardless of whether it was more expensive to dismiss by reason of redundancy, or by reason of gross misconduct, it is not the least bit suspicious or surprising that, having been contacted by Molson Coors, the [winery] decided to carry out an investigation.

‘There is no reason whatsoever for me to suspect that there was a hidden motive.’