In Reed and Bull Information Systems Ltd v Stedman (11 February 1999) EOR86B, the EAT provides general guidance on the correct approach to sexual harassment cases.
In Reed and another v Stedman, the EAT gives employment tribunals general guidance as to how they should approach complaints of sexual harassment at work. According to the EAT, sexual harassment is essentially words or conduct of a sexual nature which are unwelcome to the recipient.
The Chief Constable of the constabulary to which police officers were originally appointed remained vicariously liable for acts of sex discrimination committed by his officers while they were on secondment to branches of the Regional Crime Squad, holds the EAT in Chief Constable of the Lincolnshire Constabulary v Stubbs and others.
In Fire Brigades Union v Fraser, the Court of Session allows a trade union's appeal against an industrial tribunal's decision that it discriminated against a male firefighter accused of sexual harassment by a female colleague, when it chose to support the complainant and to deny him representation or financial or legal assistance at his disciplinary hearing.
In British Telecommunications Ltd v Williams the EAT overturns an industrial tribunal's decision that an employee suffered sex discrimination when an interview to consider her poor annual performance appraisal was conducted in a way that led to the situation becoming "sexually intimidating" for the employee.
In Jones v Tower Boot Co Ltd (11 December 1996) EOR71A, the Court of Appeal overrules the EAT and reinterprets the test for an employer's vicarious liability for an employee's discriminatory act. "Course of employment" is to be given an everyday, rather than a tort law, meaning.
In Burton v De Vere Hotels (18 September 1996), the EAT rules that an employer subjects an employee to the detriment of racial harassment if it causes or permits the racial harassment to occur in circumstances in which it can control whether it happens or not.
In deciding to exercise its discretion to extend the time limit for presentation of a complaint of sex discrimination, an industrial tribunal was entitled to take into account the fact that the complainant had been given incorrect legal advice, holds the EAT in Hawkins v (1) Ball (2) Barclays Bank plc.
In Smith v Gardner Merchant Ltd (13 February 1996) EOR67E, the EAT holds that harassment of a homosexual on grounds of sexual orientation cannot be regarded as falling within the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex.
In Waters v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (14 February 1995) EOR64B, the EAT rules that an employer could not be not liable for victimising an employee who alleged that she was sexually harassed by a work colleague, where the alleged harassment was not committed in the course of employment.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to harassment in relation to sex.