Harassment under the Equality Act 2010


Overview

Harassment is defined in S26 of the Equalities Act 2010. Harassment is, “unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, which has the purpose or effect of violating an individual’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for that individual”.

Harassment

Harassment is defined in S26 of the Equalities Act 2010Harassment is, “unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, which has the purpose or effect of violating an individual’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for that individual”.

There are three types of harassment;

  • Unwanted conduct that has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the complainant, or violating the complainant’s dignity
  • Unwanted conduct of a sexual nature (sexual harassment)
  • Treating a person less favourably than another person because they have either submitted to, or did not submit to, sexual harassment or harassment related to sex or gender reassignment

The perception of the target of harassment is very important. Harassment can happen even if a person did not intend to harass, but the target felt they were being harassed.

Under the Equalities Act 2010, it is unlawful to harass an employee or worker for a reason to their protected characteristic. Harassment applies to all the protected characteristics except pregnancy, maternity, marriage and civil partnership.

You can complain about;

Cases on harassment at work

In two unusual cases, the General Court of the European Union has ruled that the European Parliament and the European Investment Bank pay compensation to employees who suffered harassment.

In the Michela Curto v The European Parliament, a member of the European Parliament hired a parliamentary assistant. She subjected her to psychological harassment consisting of humiliating and scornful language, threats, insults and swearing. The General Court (overturning the Parliament’s internal decision) held that the degree of repetitive and systematic intentional behaviour could not be excused (as the European Parliament had done) on the grounds it was an inherently stressful atmosphere, and awarded €10,000.

In SQ v European Investment Bank, an administrator claimed that her career at the European Investment Bank had been damaged by bullying. The Bank awarded her compensation but imposed a confidentiality requirement. The General Court held it was wrong to impose a confidentiality requirement, as the public interest required such findings of harassment to be open. Further, imposing confidentiality went against the aim of preventing and penalising European Institutions which permitted harassment. A €10,000 award was made because of the confidentiality requirement.

DISCLAIMER

The information and content on this website is provided for general information purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal or other professional advice. Legal information or content on this website relates only to the laws of England and Wales. You should not take any actions based on information found on this website without first seeking appropriate legal advice with respect to your specific matter. No representations or warranties are made about the suitability, currentness, comprehensiveness and/or accuracy of the information and other content contained on this website. It should be noted that legal information and content can rapidly become out of date and we give no undertaking to keep this website up to date. All liability for any loss or damage of any kind which may be suffered as a result of accessing and using the information and/or content of this website is hereby excluded to the full extent permitted by law.