header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
22 May 2008 / Richard Nicolle
Issue: 7322 / Categories: Features , Tribunals , Disciplinary&grievance procedures , Employment
printer mail-detail

Hands off!

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Employers must be proactive in stopping third-party sexual harassment to employees, or risk discrimination claims. Richard Nicolle explains

Since 6 April 2008, employers may be vulnerable to damages claims from their employees if they knowingly fail to protect them from repeated sexual harassment by a third party. If customers or clients harass staff, they can sue their boss.

The Employment Equality (Sex Discrimination) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005/2467) (2005 Regulations) amended the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA 1975) to implement the European Equal Treatment Amendment Directive (the Directive) which expressly prohibited sexual harassment. However, in 2007 the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) mounted a successful challenge to the 2005 Regulations in the High Court (Equal Opportunities Commission v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2007] EWHC 483 (Admin), [2007] IRLR 327).

The court found that the 2005 Regulations did not adequately provide the protections required by the Directive or reflect the government's interpretation of the domestic provisions as set out in their own guidance. The court's decision

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll