Whilst sexual harassment in the workplace is not a new phenomenon, the #MeToo movement has put it in the spotlight, drawing attention to the fact that it is both widespread and commonplace in many organisations and employment sectors.
A BBC survey conducted in November 2017 found that of the 6,206 adults surveyed, 40 per cent of women and 18 per cent of men had experienced unwanted sexual behaviour in the workplace.
Given the scale of the problem, it is crucial that employment law practitioners know exactly how harassment is defined within the Equality Act 2010, the most important law on sexual harassment in the workplace.
Lecturer Kathy Daniels will begin the webinar by offering commentary on the following sexual harassment case law decisions, which have shaped what is and what is not determined to be harassment:
Urbanska-Kopowska v McIlroy and another t/a Mac’s Quality Foods [2008]
Moonsar v Fiveways Express Transport Ltd [2004]
Insitu Cleaning Co Ltd and another v Heads [1995]
Driskell v Peninsula Business Services Ltd [2000]
Bracebridge Engineering Ltd v Darby [1990]
Strathclyde Regional Council v Porcelli [1986]
Consideration will also be given to s108 Equality Act 2010 which stipulates that, if an act of discrimination is committed by an employee in the course of the employee’s employment, the employer is vicariously liable for the act.
To explore the issue of vicarious liability, Kathy will discuss the following case law:
Jones v Tower Boot Company [1996]
Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2018]
Various Claimants v WM Morrisons Supermarket plc [2018]
Bickerstaff v Butcher [2015]
This course is essential for employment law practitioners who may be called upon to act for claimants and / or defendants in relation to allegations of sexual harassment. This session will also be invaluable for paralegals and trainees solicitors who would like to understand how sexual harassment case law has developed and how this has influenced the way in which practitioners approach such cases.