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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
back-to-top-scroll