Updated to include information on Gareddu v London Underground Ltd, in which the EAT considered the issue of time off to attend religious festivals.
Employers need to ensure that their employees do not become victims of bullying and harassment as a result of the Brexit vote. We present four examples of scenarios that might lead to claims against employers.
We discuss a number of recent cases that concern NHS employers but that could also apply more widely.
In Wasteney v East London NHS Foundation Trust  IRLR 388 EAT, the EAT held that disciplinary proceedings against an employee were taken because she had acted inappropriately by imposing her religious views on a junior employee. She had not suffered unlawful religious discrimination, nor had her human right to manifest her religious belief been breached.
The employment tribunal held that a manager's use of bad language that included the words "Jesus Christ" and "God" did not harass a Christian employee.
In Heafield v Times Newspaper Ltd EAT/1305/12, the EAT held that there was no harassment based on religion or belief when an employee took offence at a colleague's comment using an expletive when referring to the Pope. In the context in which the remark was made, it could not reasonably be viewed as sufficiently offensive to amount to harassment.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has upheld a tribunal decision that the context of a remark is important when assessing whether or not it constituted harassment.
The context in which a potentially discriminatory remark is made can be pivotal in a harassment claim, as this unsuccessful religion or belief discrimination claim brought by a Times sub-editor shows.
The Government consults on proposals to repeal the third-party harassment provisions in the Equality Act 2010 on the basis that there is no evidence that they serve a practical purpose or are proportionate for dealing with harassment by third parties.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to harassment related to religion or belief.