October 2018
M T W T F S S
« Jul    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

A v West Midlands Police; EAT 21 Apr 2015

References: [2015] UKEAT 0313_14_2104
Links: Bailii
Coram: Langstaff P J
EAT Harassment – VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke
A complained that she had been subject to sexual harassment by B, her supervisor and of superior rank, over some 18 months. The Employment Tribunal found that was not so: the relationship had been consensual but had turned sour at the very end over two days, during which he had pestered her. On those two days, there had been harassment related to her sex. She complained about this to a senior officer on the last day (thus doing a protected act), after which B made no contact with her. The Employment Tribunal rejected her complaint of victimisation, which was that because, when the Respondent considered her complaint about B’s conduct, it did not sufficiently do so because it was a complaint of sexual harassment. An appeal against this conclusion was rejected, both on the facts and because it was difficult to contemplate how a failure to hear a complaint fully could be caused by the making of the complaint in the first place.
Last Update: 02-Oct-15 Ref: 552825

Leave a Reply