Updated to include information on Unite the Union v Nailard, in which the EAT considered the union's liability for sexual harassment by two of its elected branch officers against an employee.
In this week's podcast, we discuss sexual orientation discrimination.
In this employment tribunal decision, a manager's detrimental comments about the claimant's sexuality - including a greeting of "hello darling" with a limp wrist gesture - were found to constitute direct discrimination, but not harassment.
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.
In this tribunal decision, an employee who suffered workplace abuse successfully claimed sexual orientation and religion or belief harassment, despite being heterosexual and not declaring his religious beliefs.
This decision is a reminder to employers and employees that it is possible for a heterosexual employee to be subjected to sexual orientation discrimination, even if the harasser knows that the employee is not gay.
Good practice guide identifying the actions that employers can take to build an inclusive workplace for lesbian, gay and bisexual employees, while supporting the needs of the business.
In Thomas Sanderson Blinds Ltd v English EAT/0316/10 & EAT/0317/10, the EAT held that the employment tribunal was correct to look at the employee's own perceptions and feelings. The tribunal was entitled to conclude that the claimant's behaviour showed that the conduct complained of did not in fact amount to unwanted conduct with the proscribed effect.
This is a classic example of an ill-advised workplace nickname resulting in a successful discrimination claim.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to harassment related to sexual orientation.