In Veakins v Kier Islington Ltd  IRLR 132 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employee who was bullied at work by her line manager had been harassed within the meaning of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. While the Court had to keep in mind the need for the conduct complained of to be serious enough to sustain criminal liability, the key test was whether or not it was "oppressive and unacceptable". On the unchallenged evidence before the Court, it clearly was.
The High Court has awarded damages for injury and distress under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
Susannah Jarvis (associate) and Kate Williams (professional support lawyer), Addleshaw Goddard, analyse important recent rulings.
The Court of Appeal has held that an employer was vicariously liable under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 for a manager's unusually serious harassment of an employee.
Practical guidance on dealing with bullying and harassment in the workplace, including the reasonable steps defence.
The High Court has held that, in order to succeed in a claim under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, an employee must show that there was 'an element of real seriousness' to the harassment.
In Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas's NHS Trust  IRLR 695 HL, the House of Lords holds that under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 employers will be vicariously liable for harassment committed by employees acting in the course of their employment.
Joe Glavina and Phil Williams of Addleshaw Goddard outline the latest legal rulings and explain what you need to do to avoid tribunals.
In Caspersz v Ministry of Defence EAT/0599/05, the Employment Appeal Tribunal holds that an employer that introduced and implemented an effective dignity at work policy successfully defended sexual harassment claims even where the harasser was the manager with responsibility for implementing the policy.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to bullying and harassment.