header-logo header-logo

26 July 2018 / Shane Crawford
Issue: 7803 / Categories: Features , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

Context is everything

nlj_7803_crawford

Shane Crawford outlines how, in cases of harassment, the ‘related to’ consideration requires attention to the context in which the putative act occurred

  • The Employment Appeal Tribunal recently revisited the what ‘related to’ entails within the statutory definition of harassment under s 26 of the Equality Act 2010.
  • It emphasised that it requires a ‘broader enquiry’ into the facts than for direct discrimination and that such an enquiry requires an ‘intense focus’ on the context in which a statement is uttered or the offending behaviour takes place.

A common addition to pleadings alleging direct discrimination is one of harassment. The two concepts are synonymous with overt acts of discrimination by an individual which are often factually hard fought between the accuser and the accused. The case of Bakkali v Greater Manchester Buses (South Limited) UKEAT/0176/17/RN, focused on the different causation tests for the two forms of discrimination and demonstrated that a comment which appeared conspicuously discriminatory based on race or religion was not harassment or directly discriminatory when placed in the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll