header-logo header-logo

17 January 2025
Issue: 8100 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Harassment
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: The proactive duty to protect employees from sexual harassment

203861
What extra steps should employers take when employees deal with third parties? In this week’s NLJ, Vanessa Kelly, principal associate at Eversheds Sutherland, dissects the new legal duty on employers to proactively protect employees from sexual harassment, including from third parties, which took effect in October 2024.

Her article covers how the new duty applies to third parties and how third-party commercial terms can be updated. She provides a useful case study to illustrate the new duty in practice.

Kelly writes that the new duty does ‘not create a standalone claim that employees can bring. Instead, claims for breach of the duty can only be considered by a tribunal where it has upheld an employee’s claim of sexual harassment. Where an employer is found to have breached the preventative duty in such circumstances, the tribunal can increase any compensation award by up to 25%’. 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Restructuring and insolvency practice strengthened by partner hire

Gateley Legal—Billy Poulter & Shay Moore

Gateley Legal—Billy Poulter & Shay Moore

North West residential development team welcomes partner and associate

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Family law boutique expands London team with legal director hire

NEWS
Some employment law controversies never disappear—they merely lie dormant
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming legal practice, but its successful adoption depends as much on culture as technology
The fallout from Lord Mandelson’s appointment and dismissal as UK ambassador to Washington raises profound questions about constitutional governance, accountability and political appointments
Pastries may be in the firing line while kebabs escape scrutiny, but the reality is far more nuanced
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon highlights a central tension in modern public law: rights may be recognised without being fully realised
back-to-top-scroll