An estate agent whose manager offered to perform a sex act if he hit sales targets has won a sexual discrimination employment tribunal.

Senior financial consultant Paul Elworthy, 45, worked at a Your Move estate agency in Eltham and was given the offer at a Christmas party in 2013.

At the boozy festive do, Mr Elworthy was told by his boss Sarah Thompson, 51, that if he banked £180,000 he would be rewarded with “a b*** job”.

Judges at an employment tribunal in South London unanimously ruled that Mr Elworthy had been subjected to direct sex discrimination by Thompson and should be compensated.

Mr Elworthy, from Sidcup, 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 b*** 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, 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.

One colleague, Giles Barrett, recalled the remark being made and the reference to £180,000.

When he heard Thompson make the comment he said “does that count for everyone?” and she replied “no, you’re married” - this was followed by laughter.

The panel said that although the comments amounted to sex discrimination they weren't harassment.

As well as striking out that claim they also found against Mr Elworthy's claim of constructive unfair dismissal.

In their judgement, 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 that 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.