The elements of harassment have been re-emphasised, observes Mark Whitcombe
In the recent case of Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board v Hughes and others (UKEAT/0179/13) Mr Justice Langstaff reviewed the leading authorities on harassment under s 26 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) and cautioned tribunals against setting the bar too low.
The claimant had contracted Parkinson’s and could no longer do clinical work. Her grade and pay were maintained by the creation of a non-clinical post which was initially meaningful but through a series of events became menial. The employment tribunal concluded that the menial nature of the non-clinical post and a number of other matters constituted unwanted conduct which had the effect of violating dignity and of creating a demeaning environment. The claim for harassment because of disability was upheld on that basis.
Decision of the EAT
Although it upheld the overall conclusion reached by the tribunal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered that some of the individual matters found by the tribunal to constitute harassment did not themselves justify that finding,
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
