In Insitu Cleaning Co Ltd v Heads (1 September 1994) EOR59B, the EAT rules that a remark about a woman's breasts subjected her to a detriment and was unlawfully discriminatory. The EAT recommends that the employers adopt a sexual harassment procedure to prevent future incidents.
In Insitu Cleaning Co Ltd and another v Heads the EAT rejects an employer's argument that a single act cannot amount to sexual harassment until it has been done and rejected as "unwanted conduct".
In Stewart v Cleveland Guest (Engineering) Ltd, the EAT upholds an industrial tribunal's decision that a woman who was deeply upset and offended by pictures of naked women being displayed in her male-dominated workplace, and whose complaints were trivialised by her employer, was not subjected to unlawful sex discrimination.
In Stewart v Cleveland Guest (Engineering) Ltd (23 June 1994) EOR57D, the EAT dismisses an appeal against an industrial tribunal's finding that it was not sex discrimination to require a woman to work in a workplace in which male employees were allowed to display pictures of nude women, even though the employers knew that this was offensive to her, because a hypothetical man might also have objected to the pin-ups.
In Wadman v Carpenter Farrer Partnership (14 May 1993) EOR50B, the EAT draws the attention of industrial tribunals to the definition of sexual harassment contained in the European Commission Code of Practice.
In Littlewoods Organisation plc v Traynor (18 November 1992) EOR49B, the EAT holds that there is a continuing act of discrimination for time limit purposes where an employer fails to implement remedial measures.
In Wileman v Minilec Engineering Ltd (18.11.87) EOR19D, the EAT holds an award of £50 for damages for injury to feelings resulting from sexual harassment. In the course of so doing, the Appeal Tribunal sets out important principles relating to evidence in sexual harassment cases.
In Balgobin and Francis v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (14.7.87) EOR15C, the EAT upholds an industrial tribunal's finding that the employers were not vicariously liable for acts of sexual harassment committed by their employee where they did not know of the harassment, had a proper system of staff supervision, and had made known their policy of equal opportunities.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to harassment in relation to sex.