Court of Appeal decision affects tricky discrimination legislation
January 20, 2009
A recent case in the Court of Appeal has changed the way that legislation covering discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation can be applied.
In English v Thomas Sanderson Blinds Ltd the employee, Stephen English, argued that he had been discriminated against on the grounds of sexual orientation after being subjected to repeated taunts of “faggot” by his workmates, because he had been t o boarding school and because he lived near Brighton; despite the fact that he is not gay and his colleagues are aware of this.
Last year the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that English had not been discriminated against, and the key factor here was that his workmates knew he is not gay. UK law on sexual orientation discrimination is currently different from the European Directive on which it is based; which states that the reason for the behaviour that led to the claim does not need to necessarily be caused by the sexual orientation of the victim. So under the European Directive, English’s sexual orientation would be irrelevant to the fact that the behaviour was related to sexual orientation; and this is why the case was appealed and went to the Court of Appeal, which found in English’s favour. The Judge stated that the 2003 Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations applied to the case because:
“The incessant mockery created a degrading and hostile working environment, and it did so on the grounds of sexual orientation”
This decision means that the legislation is now more far-reaching, and organisations will now need to ensure their internal procedures and staff training covers the new requirements.
What’s your opinion on this? I am slightly split. On the one hand I feel that the type of behaviour English was subjected to was completely unacceptable and should be managed very stringently within companies, so this example is a good reminder to organisational leaders to do something about inappropriate behaviour within their workforce. On the other hand I can’t help feeling that in some way the legislation has been stretched slightly to cover someone that did not belong to a protected group, and will this now open the door to claims under other legislation arising from behaviour that is not acceptable but is equally not “discriminatory”. For example, I can think of a lot of derogatory words and phrases that relate to learning disabilities but that are used commonly against people who are clumsy or have said something wrong – does this mean they can claim disability discrimination? I don’t think disability legislation covers this at the moment but could this be argued after the Court of Appeal decision in the sexual orientation case? Let me know what your thoughts are!
Things to consider:Gorgeous Vertical Blinds
Comments
Got something to say?