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.
A woman who was sexually harassed by an outside contractor did not have a remedy either against her employer or against the contractor, according to a Glasgow industrial tribunal in Henderson v (1) McMillan Flooring Distributors Ltd and (2) Alatsaris t/a MA Decorators because the outside contract did not require the work to be personally executed by the harasser.
Racial and sexual harassment can pose questions of whether the employer should be held legally liable, as Harding v Dale Joinery Ltd Brannen v Frigoscandia (Grimsby) Ltd and Chisnall Cumberbatch v Hickson and Department of Social Security illustrate.
Royal Mail's harassment policy has created in its workforce a unique awareness of discrimination and how to avoid it, says a Birmingham industrial tribunal (Chair: A C Tickle) in Graham v Royal Mail and Nicholson.