Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Recruitment & retention
    • Wellbeing
    • Occupational Health
    • 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

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Recruitment & retention
    • Wellbeing
    • Occupational Health
    • 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

Sexual harassmentBullying and harassmentEmployment lawEquality, diversity and inclusion

Sexual harassment rulings: Court muddies waters for employers

by Personnel Today 10 Apr 2007
by Personnel Today 10 Apr 2007

The recent decision of the High Court in Equal Opportunities Commission v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was reported in the press as heralding a new dawn for employee rights in the workplace. The decision was wide-ranging, covering both sexual harassment in the workplace and rights for employees who take maternity leave.

Reports following the High Court’s ruling have indicated that employers will now be liable for discriminatory acts by third parties against employees. This will no doubt have sent a shiver through HR departments across the country – particularly those where employees are exposed to clients, customers or third parties.

However, stepping back from the stark media headlines, is the High Court’s decision really as significant as recent media reports have suggested?

Media speculation

It is worth noting that there are, as yet, no concrete proposals from the government concerning the required changes in the law. Therefore, media comment about the changes required to the law are, at the moment, speculatory (albeit that the government has indicated that it will not be appealing the High Court’s ruling).

The position under English law prior to this decision was that employers were not liable to their employees in connection with discriminatory acts committed by third parties, except in limited circumstances. The High Court ruling does nothing to alter this basic principle, so employers who fear that any comment or act by one of its clients or customers could constitute sexual harassment that could result in the employer being held liable can rest a little easier.

However, as ever, there is a fly in the ointment for employers. When presenting its case to the High Court, the DTI stated that the changes it introduced to sex discrimination legislation in 2005 meant that employers could be liable for acts of harassment by third parties in certain circumstances.

Liability factsheet

The DTI referred to a factsheet, published by the government’s Women and Equality Unit, which says that employers should take steps to protect an employee from third-party actions that create an offensive working environment for employees and over which the employer has control.

If the employer fails to take these steps by, say, knowingly failing to protect an employee from repetitive harassment by a customer or supplier, the Women and Equality Unit says that the employer would be subjecting the employee to harassment and would therefore be liable.

The Equal Opportunities Commission argued that these points were not implemented properly in changes to the sex discrimination legislation in 2005. And the government says that it will clarify the legislation.

Lesson from history

But if history is any guide, this is unlikely to be reassuring for employers. Consider, for example, the government’s efforts to ‘simplify’ dispute resolution procedures in the workplace, which have done anything but that.

The House of Lords ruled in Pearce v Governing Body of Mayfield Secondary School (2003) that the circumstances in which employers could be liable to employees in connection with discriminatory acts by third parties were limited.

The government seems to have chipped away at this principle with its amendments in 2005 to the Sex Discrimination Act. Following the High Court’s decision, it now has a real opportunity to clarify exactly when employers will be liable for third-party harassment.

We can only hope that the government rises to the challenge.

The responsibility gap

  • The media seems to suggest the floodgates will open and employers will be liable for sexual harassment towards their employees by third parties. This is not correct.
  • The DTI and the EOC may be lobbying for change, but the government is not yet proposing any amendments to existing legislation.
  • The position is unsatisfactory since employers do not know the extent of their responsibility.

By Michael Smith, employment associate and Ranjit Dhindsa, partner, Reed Smith Richards Butler

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.




Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
Obese patients cause back pain for thousands of nurses
next post
Gender Equality Duty could trigger equal pay claims in outsourced services

You may also like

MPs reject Lords’ amendments to Employment Rights Bill

16 Sep 2025

Judge in Supreme Court ruling said he’d ‘take...

15 Sep 2025

Employment lawyers voice AI fears on tribunal claims

15 Sep 2025

Day one rights to make 86% more cautious...

14 Sep 2025

How to steer EDI through a ‘permacrisis’

12 Sep 2025

Employment Rights Bill U-turn unlikely, say legal experts

10 Sep 2025

Gregg Wallace launches legal action against BBC dismissal

10 Sep 2025

Day one rights in the Employment Rights Bill...

10 Sep 2025

Women less confident of achieving pay or leadership...

9 Sep 2025

Bigger budgets, but greater scrutiny – welcome to...

9 Sep 2025

  • Workplace health benefits need to be simplified SPONSORED | Long-term sickness...Read more
  • Work smart – stay well: Avoid unnecessary pain with centred ergonomics SPONSORED | If you often notice...Read more
  • Elevate your L&D strategy at the World of Learning 2025 SPONSORED | This October...Read more
  • How to employ a global workforce from the UK (webinar) WEBINAR | With an unpredictable...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 Live
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
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
    • Recruitment & retention
    • Wellbeing
    • Occupational Health
    • 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