Rojgar Job News

In the lead-up to the close of the Government’s consultation on sexual harassment in the workplace we will be running a series of blogs on the issue, starting with a look at existing legislation, how it works and how it holds employers accountable for sexual harassment in the workplace. Under the Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010), sexual harassment is defined as unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, which has the purpose or effect of either: (a) violating the complainant’s dignity; or (b) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the complainant. Case law has interpreted the concept of such conduct widely – a single incident can constitute harassment and when considering the purpose or effect of the conduct, a largely subjective approach is taken based on the point of view of the complainant. So the scope of conduct constituting harassment can range anywhere from an overt physical, sexual act to comments of a faintly smutty nature ...

Back in 2016 we commented on the increasing breadth of the vicarious liability concept as seen in a claim against supermarket chain Morrisons [here].  The store was held liable to a customer who was violently assaulted by one of its petrol station attendants in direct contravention of the criminal law, his training and all reasonable principles of putting the customer first.  Last year the High Court extended it even further in a decision which made difficult reading for employers and their insurers. Various Claimants –v- William Morrisons Supermarket plc concerned the actions of one Andrew Skelton, formerly a senior IT analyst there but currently doing eight years for the conduct giving rise to this claim.  In mid-2013 Skelton received a formal warning which he considered undeserved.  He took this quite extraordinarily personally and some months later exacted his revenge on his employer.  He waited until very shortly before Morrisons’ annual financ...