header-logo header-logo

Third party harassment

05 July 2007 / Michael Salter , Chris Bryden
Issue: 7280 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

To what extent can employers be held liable for harassment caused to their employees by third parties? Michael Salter and Chris Bryden report

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in Gravell v London Borough of Bexley UKEAT/0587/06/CEA, [2007] All ER (D) 220 (May) opens up the possibility that employers can be held liable for the harassment of their employees by the actions of third parties, be they customers in a shop or schoolchildren in a classroom.

DISCRIMINATION LAW

The law of discrimination, before the addition of the relevant harassment provisions into the various discrimination legislation, was quite clear. In Burton v De Vere Hotels Ltd [1997] ICR 1, [1996] IRLR 596 the EAT allowed an appeal by two waitresses against the finding of the employment tribunal that they had not been directly discriminated against by their employer when they were subjected to racially offensive remarks by a person working as a comedian at a private function in their employer’s hotel, but not employed by the respondent. While the harassment provisions were not in

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll