Third Party Harassment
by Philip
Those of you who avidly reaed this blog may remember a debate in the comments section concerning whether an employer can be held liable for third party harassment. That debate has now been resolved in the High Court in this case here PJH Law’s approach is now deemed to be correct, in implementing the EU Directive the Government should have included third party harassment within the definition.
Similar Posts:
I remember the issue, since I commented, but I cannot find the original entry (should be in sex discrimination?). Anyway this still leaves the question raised in MacDonald - why should the employer be liable for the actions of those he cannot control? To reuse my original example, sexual abuse aimed at a particular teacher being shouted through school railings, by children or others. Can’t see that this is anything to do with the employer. Perhaps we need to add ‘on the premises’ to any definition? This would catch abuse of waitresses by customers, with which, I am sure, many employers collude.
Richard said at March 12th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Thanks Richard for reading. It’s an interesting one, let’s see how it pans out.The High Court decision may be rowed in by the C of A, alternatively the Government could amend the definition to be in line. Original post is in Feb under unfair dismissal
philip hyland said at March 12th, 2007 at 4:49 pm