Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Employment lawEmployment tribunalsOpinion

Changes to harassment approach are overdue

by Makbool Javaid 22 Feb 2005
by Makbool Javaid 22 Feb 2005

Conflicting approaches to judging sexual harassment claims continue to confuse employers and employees, as recent rulings in the Employment Appeal tribunal (EAT) show. But there may be light at the end of the tunnel with a new free-standing definition of sexual harassment due to come into force later this year.

Currently a claimant has to show that he or she was treated less favourably, in comparison with the way a person of the opposite sex was, or would have been, treated in the same situation.

The facts

In Brumfitt v Ministry of Defence [2005] IRLR 4, Ms Brumfitt attended a training course at which her male supervisor made substantial numbers of offensive, obscene remarks which were directed at both male and female personnel.

The issues

It was acknowledged that Brumfitt found this humiliating to her as a woman and that such behaviour was more likely to offend women than men.

The decision

The EAT ruled that she had not been treated less favourably because both men and women had been required to attend the course and both had been on the receiving end of the remarks.

The EAT ruled that if a man uses offensive words of a sexual nature in conversation with a woman, this does not constitute discrimination if it can be shown that he would have made the same remarks to a man in a comparable situation.

A more purposeful approach is to recognise that, while women and men may be treated in exactly the same way, this may still amount to less favourable treatment of women if that behaviour is more likely to humiliate women than men.

A far less restrictive approach to the comparator issue was adopted by the EAT in Moonsar v Fiveways Express Transport Ltd [2005] IRLR 9.

The facts

Mrs Moonsar worked alongside male members of staff who, on three occasions, downloaded pornographic images on to a screen in the room where they were all working.

Although the images were not circulated to her she worked in close proximity and was aware of the event and felt it undermined her dignity at work.

The issues

Moonsar argued that, while the ‘treatment’ of a male comparator may be identical, the use of pornography in the presence of a woman is less favourable treatment than in the presence of a man.

The decision

The EAT ruled that, viewed objectively, the behaviour of the male members of staff clearly could offend a female employee working in a close environment and would be regarded as degrading or offensive to an employee as a woman.

Free-standing definitions

A public consultation on draft regulations implementing amendments to the Equal Treatment Directive will be launched in spring 2005 with a view to regulations coming into force on 1 October. This will define harassment as:



  • Sex-based harassment – where unwanted conduct related to the sex of a person occurs with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person, and of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.
  • Sexual harassment – where any form of unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature occurs, with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person, in particular when creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Claimants will only have to show that the conduct complained of did result in one or more of the negative outcomes described.

Click here or more information on how to obtain a copy of the One-Stop Guide to New Equality Law

Makbool Javaid, partner, DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary UK LLP

Makbool Javaid

previous post
Tribunal to hear City’s first homosexuality discrimination case
next post
Time to push the boundaries

You may also like

Ministers loosen fire and rehire proposals in Employment...

10 Jul 2025

£188k tribunal award for director sacked after cardiac...

10 Jul 2025

Court of Appeal rules that Ryanair agency pilot...

9 Jul 2025

ADHD and autism diagnosis was evidence of impact,...

9 Jul 2025

Bereavement leave to extend to miscarriages before 24...

7 Jul 2025

Company director wins £15k after being told to...

4 Jul 2025

How can HR prepare for changes to the...

3 Jul 2025

Government publishes ‘roadmap’ for Employment Rights Bill

2 Jul 2025

Employers’ duty of care: keeping workers safe in...

27 Jun 2025

When will the Employment Rights Bill become law?

26 Jun 2025

  • Empower and engage for the future: A revolution in talent development (webinar) WEBINAR | As organisations strive...Read more
  • Empowering working parents and productivity during the summer holidays SPONSORED | Businesses play a...Read more
  • AI is here. Your workforce should be ready. SPONSORED | From content creation...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+