The law relating to harassment is a minefield for employers to navigate. The fact that the law focuses on the effect of the conduct, not the nature of the conduct, makes it tricky.
However, some comfort is found in the recent Employment tribunal decision in Perera v Stonegate Pub Company Ltd where it was held that an employer who laughed at an employee who fell over at work had not harassed them on racial or religious grounds.
The Judge said that the "slapstick element" of someone falling over was likely to cause laughter. To be regarded as harassment it had to have the purpose or effect of violating the employee’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the employee. Applying this test the Judge found that "The conduct itself, objectively, came nowhere near having the proscribed effect, and [the employee’s] view of matters was unreasonable." He found that, although the employee’s perception had to be taken into account, the test was not satisfied merely because the employee thought it was.
It should be noted that this case concerned the protected characteristics of race and religion. The Tribunal decided that laughing at the employee’s fall, whilst unwanted, was not conduct related to one of these protected characteristics. However, race and religion are not the only protected characteristics, if, on the same facts, the fall was because of the employee’s disability, then the decision may have been to uphold the claim of harassment on that basis.
However, some comfort is found in the recent Employment tribunal decision in Perera v Stonegate Pub Company Ltd where it was held that an employer who laughed at an employee who fell over at work had not harassed them on racial or religious grounds.
The Judge said that the "slapstick element" of someone falling over was likely to cause laughter. To be regarded as harassment it had to have the purpose or effect of violating the employee’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the employee. Applying this test the Judge found that "The conduct itself, objectively, came nowhere near having the proscribed effect, and [the employee’s] view of matters was unreasonable." He found that, although the employee’s perception had to be taken into account, the test was not satisfied merely because the employee thought it was.
It should be noted that this case concerned the protected characteristics of race and religion. The Tribunal decided that laughing at the employee’s fall, whilst unwanted, was not conduct related to one of these protected characteristics. However, race and religion are not the only protected characteristics, if, on the same facts, the fall was because of the employee’s disability, then the decision may have been to uphold the claim of harassment on that basis.
