Harrods security guard John Perrett (pictured0 claims he was the victim of sexism because he stopped two women walking through the store with coffee due to health and safety rules

A Harrods security guard claims he was the victim of sexism because he stopped two women walking through the store with coffee due to health and safety rules.

John Perrett said he was only following guidelines when he stopped Caroline Lyons and Chloe Marsh - a merchandise manager and PA respectively - carrying hot drinks through the upmarket store.

He claims that, when he stopped the women passing through a forbidden 'staff check area', they became rude and aggressive.

Following an argument over the furore, Mr Perrett was dismissed from his £928-a-week job for gross misconduct.

But he says he was 'bullied and intimidated', solely for trying to 'maintain a safe environment'.

The former Irish Guardsmen said the rules are in place to stop drinks spilling on the floor, which could cause someone to slip.

He is now claiming sex discrimination on the basis that Ms Lyons and Ms Marsh's side of the story was believed because of their sex.

But he said bosses did not believe his claims that the women had also been aggressive because he is a man.

He also claims that the women tried to intimidate him by suggesting they were getting the coffee for Sarah Andrews, a board member and the HR and Retail director. Mr Perrett now wants £91,000 from the business.

The Central London Employment tribunal heard how there were signs plastered over the Knightsbridge store banning unsealed drinks on the shop floor. Even in staff-only areas, the drinks had to be carried in lifts and not on the escalators.

Mr Perrett said that, during the incident in question, Ms Marsh pushed the bag across the counter to the security guard before walking away.

When Mr Perrett told Ms Marsh that she couldn't leave the drinks there, Ms Lyons snatched them off the desk and walked out angrily, he claims.

She then returned and asked to see his ID badge so she 'could tell Sarah Andrews who is responsible for her not getting her coffee', Mr Perrett claimed.

The former Irish Guardsmen is claiming sex discrimination and £91,000 on the basis that the females' versions of events were believed because of their sex

Fellow security officer and former policeman Nick Daykin witnessed the incident and later told an investigation meeting that Mr Perrett was 'assertive, but in no way aggressive'.

'In fact, he apologised for having to stop them and that he didn't make the rules but has to enforce them,' he said.

The rules were later changed to allow staff to carry hot drinks if they had a lid and were in a bag.

Three weeks later, an investigation was launched after Ms Marsh said Mr Perrett had been 'aggressive, dismissive, patronising, and rude'.

Merchandise manager Caroline Lyons was stopped from carrying coffee into the famous shop

During a subsequent disciplinary hearing, Mr Perrett said the two women had been believed because of their sex whereas his version of events had been rejected for the opposite reason.

Mr Perrett, who had joined Harrods in November 2012, said at the time: 'This again demonstrates that the respondent chooses who can claim bullying dependent on their sex and seniority.

'The chair went on to state that purely by stopping the ladies I was perceived as aggressive which puts the job of every officer in the company at risk simply for doing their jobs.'

His appeal that he had been treated less favourably was rejected.

Mr Perrett said: 'I believe that, at best, Ms Andrews and Ms Taylor were mistaken.

'At worst, they fabricated the allegations to ensure that instead of just one alleged incident with the coffee, there would be several behaviour issues which would constitute in line within the behaviour policy.

'I believe I stopped Ms Marsh on a reasonable and valid health and safety issue and when she realised intimidation did not work, Ms Marsh and her colleagues including a senior director, launched what can only be described as a witch hunt against me which was supported and exacerbated by operations managers.'

In his witness statement, Mr Perrett added: 'We are there to protect staff and customers, our job description states that this may be at our own personal safety, yet we are undermined and prevented from doing this by a culture of elitism.

'A policy that was put in place to protect staff, customers and visitors was changed without assessing the risk, simply so a director and her PA can have the coffee they prefer.

'I still wish to be reinstated. I have asked many times why would I want to go back after this.

'My answer is simple, I would like nothing better than to walk back in those doors with my head held high and, hopefully, it would act as a warning to those in the hierarchy that they cannot ride roughshod over their subordinates without consequences.'

Mr Perrett is claiming sexual discrimination, unfair dismissal and for enforcing health and safety.

Harrods denies the allegations. The tribunal continues.