A person (A) harasses another (B) if A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic which has the purpose or effect of either: •          Violating B’s dignity, or •          Creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B. (Section 26(1), Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010).) The EAT decided that an employer was not liable when a patient racial harassed one of its employees on the basis that any failure to take adequate steps to prevent racial harassment in its workplace were not because of race. Following the Court of Appeal’s decision in Unite the Union v Nailard [2018] EWCA Civ 1203, an employer will only be liable for the third-party harassment of an employee where the employer’s action or inaction is because of the relevant – Read More…

Article 8(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) states “everyone has a right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence”. Article 8(2) says there shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The case López Ribalda and others v Spain concerned installation of covert surveillance in a Spanish supermarket where there was a high level of theft. The surveillance was – Read More…

Acas has published new guidance to help employers and managers support staff who are affected by menopause symptoms at work. Around two million women aged over 50 have difficulties at work due to their menopause symptoms and it is estimated that one in 20 women could go through an early menopause. The effects of the menopause can lead to staff feeling ill, losing confidence to do their job or feeling stressed, anxious or depressed. Menopause symptoms can include: Feeling tiring and lacking energy Hot flushes Feeling anxious and panic attacks Struggling to concentrate or focus Headaches including migraines The new Acas advice includes tips for workers on how to raise any concerns and good practice guidance for employers to help manage menopause at work. Top tips include: Create and implement a – Read More…

Mr Curless was employed by Shell International Ltd as a Lawyer from 30 January 1990 until his dismissal for redundancy on 21 January 2017. He suffered from Type 2 Diabetes and Obstructive Sleep Apnoea. The following findings were made by the employment judge: There had been concerns about Mr Curless’s work since 2011. In August 2015, Mr Curless issued tribunal proceedings arguing that Shell had taken measures amounting to disability discrimination and/or had failed to make reasonable adjustments. In January 2016, Mr Curless raised a grievance that he had been subjected to disability discrimination. The grievance was heard in March, and Mr Curless received an outcome letter in June 2016. In April 2016, Shell started a redundancy programme. After Mr Curless applied unsuccessfully for certain roles, he was placed in – Read More…

In Dronsfield v The University of Reading UKEAT/0255/18, the EAT considered whether an employee had been unfairly dismissed where views helpful to the employee had been removed from a final investigation report on the advice of the employer’s in-house solicitor. In misconduct cases, for any subsequent dismissal to be fair, an employer should first carry out an adequate investigation into the employee’s conduct to determine whether there are grounds for disciplinary action to be taken. The non-statutory Acas guide to conducting workplace investigations advises that: • The investigation report should summarise the factual findings of the investigation. • The investigator should restrict their conclusions to recommendations on whether the employer should take formal action, such as holding a disciplinary hearing. The investigator should not suggest a possible sanction or prejudge – Read More…

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has updated its guidance on timescales for responding to data subject individual rights requests. The guidance makes clear that, when calculating the one-month period for response, the day of receipt is day one rather than the day after receipt. How long do you have to comply with a request? You must comply with a request without undue delay and at the latest within one month of receipt of the request or (if later) within one month of receipt of: any requested information to clarify the request; any information requested to confirm the requester’s identity; or a fee (only in certain circumstances). You should calculate the time limit from the day you receive the request (whether it is a working day or not) until the corresponding – Read More…

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has upheld the decision of the Employment Tribunal to find that a GP registered with CBCH, a company providing out-of-hours services to the NHS, was a worker under section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Employment Tribunal had found that the doctor was a worker despite the fact that from October 2015 she was paid through a limited company. The judge noted the main features of the GP’s role, including that she had worked regular shifts for around 12 years, but that there was no mutuality of obligation; she did not need permission to perform work outside CBCH’s activities; she provided her own medical equipment and indemnity insurance; and she was required to work personally for the provider and could not send a substitute – Read More…

In the combined cases of Page v Lord Chancellor and Page v NHS Trust Development Authority 0304/180183/18 the Employment Appeal Tribunal has decided that a magistrate who was removed from office after he publicly expressed his faith-based objection to the adoption of children by same-sex couples was not unlawfully victimised. His removal from office was a response to concern that he was prepared to flout his judicial oath of impartiality and thereby bring the judiciary into disrepute, which was separate to any protected act that he may have done in expressing his beliefs. The EAT also decided that the non-renewal of the magistrate’s term as non-executive director of an NHS Trust did not amount to victimisation, being a response to the manner in which he expressed his beliefs in the – Read More…

In L v Q Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 1417, the Court of Appeal was asked to decide whether there was any scope to prevent publication of a judgment on the register. They held that the only reason that would allow for a judgement not to be published would be if the case was a matter national security. Since February 2017, HM Courts & Tribunals Service launched has published all judgments of Employment Tribunal decisions in an online database. L brought disability discrimination, harassment and victimisation claims against his employer, Q Ltd. The EAT upheld the tribunal’s orders preventing identification of the parties and witnesses and granting anonymisation. However, it set aside the tribunal’s order that the judgment should not be entered on the register. It held that the judgment should – Read More…

On 6th August the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal from 6th March 2018 in the case of Brazel v The Harper Trust. The Court of Appeal considered whether the holiday entitlement of part-year workers on permanent contracts should be prorated to that of full year workers to reflect the fact that they do not work throughout the year. The Claimant, Ms Brazel, was a part-time music teacher working mostly during term time. She was engaged on a ‘zero hours’ contract and had a contractual right to 5.6 weeks holiday pay, mirroring her statutory right. Rather than calculating the basis for holiday pay by the methodology set out in section 224 Employment Rights Act 1996, the Respondent calculated it on the basis of 12.07% of – Read More…