Underhill P., in one of his first judgments as President of the EAT, has handed down a judgment analysing the requirements of 'harassment' (which is now a discrete form of discrimination under the various discrimination Acts).
In Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal, a director had said to a senior employee who was leaving the company, "We will probably bump into each other in future, unless you are married off in India". She claimed that amounted to an act of harassment on grounds of her race.
Upholding the tribunal's finding that it did amount to harassment, Underhill P reminds practitioners that the 'old' caselaw on harassment, created before the statutory definition, should be largely disregarded - as should caselaw under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (para. 11).
He then proceeds to analyse the statutory provisions and set out what they require - five paragraphs which I recommend all practitioners read (paras. 12-16).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment