Equality, diversity and human rights >
Bullying and harassment
In Peninsula Business Service Ltd v Baker [2017] IRLR 394 EAT, the EAT held that, for a claim of harassment to succeed in a case involving the protected characteristic of disability, it is not enough for the alleged harassment to be "related to" disability in a general sense. The claimant must actually have a disability to bring the claim.
This case is a prime example of the problems that can occur in a workplace when a member of staff is undergoing IVF treatment in a bid to get pregnant.
The High Court has awarded damages for injury and distress under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
In Veakins v Kier Islington Ltd [2010] IRLR 132 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employee who was bullied at work by her line manager had been harassed within the meaning of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. While the Court had to keep in mind the need for the conduct complained of to be serious enough to sustain criminal liability, the key test was whether or not it was "oppressive and unacceptable". On the unchallenged evidence before the Court, it clearly was.
Susannah Jarvis (associate) and Kate Williams (professional support lawyer), Addleshaw Goddard, analyse important recent rulings.
The High Court has held that, in order to succeed in a claim under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, an employee must show that there was 'an element of real seriousness' to the harassment.
In Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas's NHS Trust [2006] IRLR 695 HL, the House of Lords holds that under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 employers will be vicariously liable for harassment committed by employees acting in the course of their employment.
In Caspersz v Ministry of Defence EAT/0599/05, the Employment Appeal Tribunal holds that an employer that introduced and implemented an effective dignity at work policy successfully defended sexual harassment claims even where the harasser was the manager with responsibility for implementing the policy.
In Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Trust, the Court of Appeal holds that vicarious liability is not restricted to common law claims. An employer may be vicariously liable for a breach of statutory duty imposed only on his employee, if that would be just and reasonable in light of a sufficiently close connection between the unlawful act and the employee's duties and/or if the risk of the employee's wrongdoing is "reasonably incidental" to the employee's duties and, further, if the statute does not expressly (or on its proper construction) exclude such vicarious liability.
Even if the applicant's allegations of sexual harassment were true, the employer, which had a "comprehensive" complaints procedure that the applicant failed to make use of, would have escaped liability by virtue of the defence in s. 41(3) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, rules a Birmingham industrial tribunal in Davies v Secretary of State for Social Security.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to bullying and harassment.