This is a preview. To continue reading please log in or Register to read this article

Sex discrimination: Vulgar remarks were sexist although they were also made to men

This report relates to 1 case(s)

  • expand

    Driskel v Peninsula Business Services Ltd and others [2000] IRLR 151 EAT (2 other reports)

    • Banter intimidatory

      Date:
      1 June 2000

      The EAT in Driskel v Peninsula Business Services has held that in determining whether sexual banter amounts to sex discrimination, the sex of both the complainant and the alleged discriminator should be taken into account.

    • Sexual banter discriminatory

      Date:
      1 May 2000

      In Driskel v Peninsula Business Services (17 December 1999) EOR91D, the EAT holds that in determining whether sexual banter amounts to sex discrimination, the sex of both the complainant and the alleged discriminator should be taken into account.

In Driskel v Peninsula Business Services Ltd and others [2000] IRLR 151, the EAT holds that a woman in the unenviable position of having to seek promotion by way of a one-to-one interview with a man for whom she had an antipathy was subjected to remarks from him which, in an appalling fashion, sought to exploit the situation by reference to the sex of, respectively, interviewee and interviewer. By those remarks, whether they were flippant or not, he undermined her dignity as a woman when, being heterosexual, he would never similarly have treated a man; his comments to men were vulgar without being intimidatory. Given the nature of the remarks, the fact that she did not complain immediately was not significant.