Employment law cases

All items: Bullying and harassment

  • Employers not liable for third-party harassment, confirms EAT

    In Bessong v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that the Equality Act 2010 cannot be interpreted to make an NHS trust vicariously liable for race discrimination for a patient's racially motivated attack on a mental-health nurse.

  • Court of Appeal rules on employer liability for third-party harassment

    In Unite the Union v Nailard, the Court of Appeal held that the union was liable for the acts of its lay officials because they were acting as its agents, but that the union was not liable for failures by its employed union officials to prevent discrimination by third-party lay officials.

  • EAT confirms importance of "context" in harassment cases

    In Bakkali v Greater Manchester Buses (South) Ltd t/a Stage Coach Manchester, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that asking a Muslim employee whether or not he supported IS did not amount to harassment because, given the context, the offending comment was not "related to" his religious belief or race.

  • Disability discrimination: No harassment claim possible where disability not established

    In Peninsula Business Service Ltd v Baker [2017] IRLR 394 EAT, the EAT held that, for a claim of harassment to succeed in a case involving the protected characteristic of disability, it is not enough for the alleged harassment to be "related to" disability in a general sense. The claimant must actually have a disability to bring the claim.

  • Employer harassed and victimised employee after she underwent IVF treatment

    This case is a prime example of the problems that can occur in a workplace when a member of staff is undergoing IVF treatment in a bid to get pregnant.

  • Rayment v Ministry of Defence

    Date:
    10 March 2010

    The High Court has awarded damages for injury and distress under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

  • Protection from harassment: "Oppressive and unacceptable" conduct is test for harassment

    Date:
    10 March 2010

    In Veakins v Kier Islington Ltd [2010] IRLR 132 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employee who was bullied at work by her line manager had been harassed within the meaning of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. While the Court had to keep in mind the need for the conduct complained of to be serious enough to sustain criminal liability, the key test was whether or not it was "oppressive and unacceptable". On the unchallenged evidence before the Court, it clearly was.

  • Case round-up

    Susannah Jarvis (associate) and Kate Williams (professional support lawyer), Addleshaw Goddard, analyse important recent rulings.

  • Hammond v International Network Services UK Ltd

    Date:
    19 November 2007

    The High Court has held that, in order to succeed in a claim under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, an employee must show that there was 'an element of real seriousness' to the harassment.

  • Harassment/employer's liability: Employers may be vicariously liable under 'stalking' legislation

    Date:
    22 September 2006

    In Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas's NHS Trust [2006] IRLR 695 HL, the House of Lords holds that under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 employers will be vicariously liable for harassment committed by employees acting in the course of their employment.

About this category

Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to bullying and harassment.