An estate agent who was offered a sex act by his boss if he hit sales targets has won legal battle against her.

Sarah Thompson, 51, told Paul Elworthy, 45, that she would perform the act on him if he banked £180,000.

The senior financial consultant at Your Move reported his manager after saying the proposition made him feel 'uncomfortable'.

Sarah Thompson (left), 51, told Paul Elworthy (right), 45, that she would perform the act on him if he banked £180,000

Judges at an employment tribunal ruled that Mr Elworthy had been subjected to direct sexual discrimination by Thompson and should be compensated.

Mr Elworthy told the hearing in south London: 'I attended a senior consultants' reward lunch.

'At that meeting Sarah Thompson stated she would provide me with a blow job if I hit £180,000 banked income.

'This was said in the presence of a number of people. It made me feel very uncomfortable. I did not report it as she was my line manager. I would not get a fair hearing.'

Thompson, who works at Your Move's regional HQ in Chessington, South London, had denied the claims.

When asked by her firm's HR department in 2015 if she had made the comment she said: 'Absolutely not, do you really think I would ever say that? He might have wanted me too.'

The tribunal heard evidence from members of staff who were at the Christmas lunch which contradicted what Thomson said.

Thompson denied that she offered to perform the sex act on Mr Elworthy

One colleague, Giles Barrett, recalled that he heard Thompson make the comment and had replied 'does that count for everyone?' only for her to say 'no, you're married' - this was followed by laughter.

The panel said although the comments amounted to sexual discrimination, they were not harassment.

The judges also found against Mr Elworthy's claim of constructive unfair dismissal.

The tribunal ruled: 'We have found that Ms Thompson's comment left the claimant feeling 'a bit uncomfortable' and 'not great'.

'It did not meet the bar for harassment but we find that the effect on him was nevertheless a detriment.

'It was a highly sexualised comment and we have no hesitation in finding that the comment was made because of the claimant's gender.'

They added: 'We find that Ms Thompson would not have made an equivalent comment to a woman.

'We therefore find that the comment was less favourable treatment because of sex and the claim for direct sex discrimination succeeds.'

Mr Elworthy had also claimed he was constructively unfairly dismissed as he was 'forced' to clean toilets - but judges threw out this claim.

At the tribunal Mr Elworthy accepted that he had never cleaned and that he had never been disciplined or reprimanded for failing to carry out cleaning duties in the seven-year period he worked at the firm.

A further hearing will determine the amount of damages.