Welcome to the section of our site where you may download our recent news items and publications or subscribe to our regular legal updates.
Practice area All Business - Banking Business - Brands Business - Commercial litigation & arbitration Business - Corporate Business - Corporate finance Business - Cultural assets & art Business - Employment Business - Funds, investments, tax & trusts Business - Hotels Business - Insolvency Business - IP, media & reputation management Business - Italy Business - Not-for-profit organizations Business - Real estate Business - Tax Personal - Cultural assets & art Personal - Divorce & family law Personal - Elder law Personal - Employment Personal - Family office & family business Personal - Italy Personal - Landed estates Personal - Litigation Personal - Philanthropy & charitable giving Personal - Probate & trust management Personal - Residential real estate Personal - Tax Personal - Trust & succession disputes Personal - Wealth structuring Personal - Wills & succession planning
Type of publication All Brochures Legal Updates and Articles News Newsletter
Published between 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Keywords
Search
25 April 2008
Whilst the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 prohibit discrimination, victimisation and harassment in the workplace by reason of sexual orientation, case law and our experience shows there is uncertainty in the law. What protection do the Regulations afford to employees in the three scenarios set out below?
In Brooks v Findlay Industries UK Ltd, the claimant was a gay man who kept his sexual orientation hidden from his colleagues. Colleagues started spreading rumours that he was gay, culminating in open taunts and the disclosure of his confidential contact details which referred to his male partner. The employer was found liable for discrimination and harassment on grounds of sexual orientation.
In the recent case of English v Thomas Sanderson Blinds Ltd, Mr English was a heterosexual man. He claimed his colleagues had subjected him to sexual innuendo for attending boarding school and living in Brighton. His claim for harassment under the Regulations failed because he accepted that although his colleagues may have perceived him to have ‘gay' characteristics, they did not actually perceive him to be gay. It was held that although the homophobic banter was unacceptable, it was just a ‘vehicle for teasing' Mr English and was not based on his colleagues' perception or incorrect assumption that he was in fact gay. On that basis, the unwanted conduct was not ‘on grounds of' sexual orientation.
The effect of English above is not entirely satisfactory if the point of the Regulations is to prevent homophobic remarks being bandied around the workplace. The government might address this issue as part of the Discrimination Law Review, of which further details will be published later this year. In cases where an employee is known not to be gay but is teased about having, for example, a family member who is gay, the employee would be likely to have a claim for sexual orientation discrimination.