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+

Bullying and harassmentGenderGender pay gap

Harassment and inequality: should some of the red-tape “burdens” be reinstated?

by Darren Newman 26 Jan 2018
by Darren Newman 26 Jan 2018 Women take part in a march in New York against sexual harassment
M. Stan Reaves/REX/Shutterstock
Women take part in a march in New York against sexual harassment
M. Stan Reaves/REX/Shutterstock

XpertHR consultant editor Darren Newman looks at amendments to “cut red tape” made to the Equality Act by the previous coalition Government – which, in light of the harassment and inequality issues now being exposed on a regular basis, seem particularly ill advised and outdated.

It feels like there has been an important shift in our culture over the treatment of women in the workplace. The scandal surrounding the Presidents Club dinner in London follows months of allegations against high-profile individuals in politics and the arts.

Meanwhile, pay is also under the spotlight as large employers start to publish figures on their gender pay gap ahead of the spring deadline and the BBC faces claims that women in senior roles are paid far less than their male counterparts. It is just possible that these developments will lead to a reappraisal of how the legislation on sex discrimination and equal pay has been amended in recent years to ease the burden on employers.

In relation to harassment, one of the features of many of the recent allegations is that the victim was harassed by a customer, client or some other third party rather than by her employer.

The Presidents Club allegations in particular are reminiscent of the case of Burton and Rhule v De Vere Hotels [1996] IRLR 596 EAT in which a hotel was held liable for the racist and sexist verbal abuse directed at two serving staff by the comedian Bernard Manning and members of his audience at an event held in the hotel. However, the approach of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in that case was expressly disapproved by the House of Lords in Macdonald v Advocate General for Scotland; Pearce v Governing Body of Mayfield School [2003] IRLR 512 HL. In that case the Lords held that an employer was not liable for the homophobic bullying of a teacher by school pupils, because the school’s actions in exposing her to that bullying were not themselves on the grounds of sexual orientation.

One of the features of many of the recent allegations is that the victim was harassed by a customer, client or some other third party rather than by her employer.

When the Equality Act 2010 was passed it contained specific provisions on “third-party harassment” designed to fill the gap that was thus left in the protection of employees – albeit in a rather limited way. Under s.40 an employer could be made liable for the harassment of its employees by a third party – although only if the employer knew that the particular employee had been harassed on at least two previous occasions and it had not taken all reasonable steps to prevent further incidents. That was a far from perfect provision, but it was at least something that created a positive duty on employers to protect their employees from harassment.

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.

Continue reading the full article on XpertHR

relx_copyright – This article is Brightmine content – Copyright 2024 LexisNexis Risk Solutions

Darren Newman

Darren Newman qualified as a barrister in 1990, and has represented both employers and employees at tribunal. He provides straightforward practical guidance on a wide range of employment law issues. Darren also works as a consultant editor for XpertHR.

previous post
Woman paid less than male colleague wins equal pay claim
next post
Senior managers do not do enough to tackle gender balance, says CMI

You may also like

Redefining leadership: From competence to inclusion

21 May 2025

Consultation launched after Supreme Court ‘sex’ ruling

20 May 2025

Black security manager awarded £360k after decade of...

20 May 2025

RCN warns Darlington NHS trust over single-sex spaces

16 May 2025

EHRC bows to pressure and extends gender consultation

15 May 2025

Culture, ‘micro-incivilities’ and invisible talent

14 May 2025

Period pain and absence harm women’s pay and...

13 May 2025

Ministers urged to outlaw misuse of NDAs

7 May 2025

Lincolnshire doctor awarded £250k in race discrimination case

2 May 2025

‘Unacceptable to question integrity’ of Supreme Court judgment

2 May 2025

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...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+