Bullying and harassment

New and updated

• Date:

  10 March 2010

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Rayment v Ministry of Defence

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

• Type:

  Employment law cases

  Case round-up

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

• Date:

  19 November 2007

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Hammond v International Network Services UK Ltd

  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.

• Type:

  FAQs

  Where an employee's claim of harassment turns out to be unfounded, can they be disciplined for raising a grievance?

• Date:

  22 September 2006

  Type:

  Employment law cases

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

  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.

• Date:

  4 August 2006

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Sex discrimination: Successful defence to claims of sexual harassment

  In Caspersz v Ministry of Defence EAT/0599/05, the Employment Appeal Tribunal holds that an employer that introduced and implemented an effective dignity at work policy successfully defended sexual harassment claims even where the harasser was the manager with responsibility for implementing the policy.

• Date:

  13 May 2005

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Harassment/employer's liability: Employers held vicariously liable under 'stalking' legislation

  In Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Trust, the Court of Appeal holds that vicarious liability is not restricted to common law claims. An employer may be vicariously liable for a breach of statutory duty imposed only on his employee, if that would be just and reasonable in light of a sufficiently close connection between the unlawful act and the employee's duties and/or if the risk of the employee's wrongdoing is "reasonably incidental" to the employee's duties and, further, if the statute does not expressly (or on its proper construction) exclude such vicarious liability.

• Date:

  1 June 1995

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Not liable for sexual harassment

  Even if the applicant's allegations of sexual harassment were true, the employer, which had a "comprehensive" complaints procedure that the applicant failed to make use of, would have escaped liability by virtue of the defence in s. 41(3) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, rules a Birmingham industrial tribunal in Davies v Secretary of State for Social Security.

• Date:

  1 June 1995

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  No liability for harassment by contractor

  A woman who was sexually harassed by an outside contractor did not have a remedy either against her employer or against the contractor, according to a Glasgow industrial tribunal in Henderson v (1) McMillan Flooring Distributors Ltd and (2) Alatsaris t/a MA Decorators because the outside contract did not require the work to be personally executed by the harasser.

• Date:

  1 December 1994

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Harassment "in the course of employment"

  Racial and sexual harassment can pose questions of whether the employer should be held legally liable, as Harding v Dale Joinery Ltd Brannen v Frigoscandia (Grimsby) Ltd and Chisnall Cumberbatch v Hickson and Department of Social Security illustrate.