The first in a new three-part series on sex discrimination and harassment.
There have recently been a number of changes to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 of which charities should be aware. The harassment provisions of the act have been amended, and an employer can now be liable for third-party harassment. This will be discussed in detail in my next article.
The act says "a person subjects a woman to harassment if ... he engages in unwanted conduct that is related to her sex or that of another person that has the purpose or effect of (a) violating her dignity, or (b) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for her".
Harassment now covers sex-based abuse, whereas previously it covered only harassment perpetrated "on grounds of sex". As the Government's guidance on the new provision says, this means it will cover a wider range of conduct.
The guidance gives a couple of examples. The first is a situation in which male colleagues dislike a female colleague and put office equipment on a high shelf to make it hard for her to reach. The old definition would probably not apply to this behaviour, because the men are acting out of dislike for the woman and not because she is a woman. However, the new definition may well apply: the conduct relates to sex because women are, on average, shorter than men.
The other example is of a male manager following a woman into the ladies toilets. This could be conduct related to sex, but might not be conduct on grounds of sex (if, for example, the reason for the manager following the employee into the toilet was to shout at her).
The new definition has also opened up the possibility of claims from people who witness harassment. These witnesses will not be the direct recipients of the conduct in question, but will feel harassed by the conduct, and they can be of the opposite sex to the recipient of the harassment.
An example given in the government guidance is of a female manager who calls a female employee a "floozy" or "airhead", and this is witnessed by a male colleague who considers that his dignity is violated by this, or considers that it creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for him.
- Emma Burrows is a partner and head of the employment group at Trowers & Hamlins solicitors
