Hilary Slater, consultant with Cobbetts solicitors, provides a round-up of employment tribunal decisions on discrimination.
This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering the joint and several liability of an employer and harasser for harassment.
In Bernard v Attorney-General of Jamaica, the Privy Council holds that the Attorney-General of Jamaica was vicariously liable for the unlawful shooting of a member of the public by a police constable who was attempting to jump the queue for a public telephone.
A review of recent significant cases on practice and procedure in the employment tribunals, EAT and Court of Appeal.
A recent ruling by the Court of Appeal means that employers may now face civil liability claims for stress and anxiety caused by harassment, under the terms of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, writes Paul Quain of Linklaters.
In Banks v Ablex Ltd, the Court of Appeal holds that the claimant suffered a depressive disorder, allegedly as a result of the conduct of a colleague, but failed to establish that a course of conduct had taken place that could be properly described as harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, in that she failed to show that the misconduct had occurred on at least two occasions.
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.
This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering constructive dismissal.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to the workplace environment.