Sexual harassment - changes ahead?
Following #MeToo, a consultation was launched by the Government in July 2019 on Sexual Harassment in the Workplace, considering a number of potential areas for reform.
Following #MeToo, a consultation was launched by the Government in July 2019 on Sexual Harassment in the Workplace, considering a number of potential areas for reform. The Government has now published its response to this consultation, indicating that a number of changes will be introduced relating to sexual harassment in the workplace “when parliamentary time allows”.
A pro-active approach
One of the areas consulted upon was whether a new duty should be placed on employers to take proactive steps to prevent harassment in the workplace. Although employers are already liable for any harassment carried out by their employees at work (unless they have taken all reasonable steps to prevent it), sexual harassment is still widespread. A proactive duty was therefore proposed which would oblige employers to take more steps to prevent harassment from happening in the first place.
The consultation included consideration of how such a duty would operate in practice – including who should be able to enforce the duty (an individual, the EHRC or both), and whether an act of harassment would be required before a claim could be brought, or whether a challenge could be brought on the basis of a breach of the duty alone.
The Government’s response confirms that it intends to go ahead with the introduction of a new duty obliging employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment. However, the response states that an incident of harassment will still need to have taken place before a claim can be brought by an individual. This new duty would therefore seem to entirely stand or fall with the primary harassment claim – unless it will be possible for a tribunal to find that there was no harassment on the facts of the claim, but that the employer had nevertheless not taken steps to prevent harassment more generally.
No detail has been provided at this stage about the “compensation model” – and in particular whether this will be a fixed “penalty” that will apply nor how it will fit with the current method for calculating compensation in harassment claims.
The extent of EHRC’s involvement is also unclear at this stage, with the response indicating that discussions will be held on this point. However, a new statutory code of practice is to be introduced which will supplement the technical guidance introduced in January 2020.
When the Equality Act 2010 (the Act) was introduced, it contained provisions in relation to third-party harassment. These provisions meant that employers could be held liable if employees were harassed by third parties during their employment, where harassment had taken place on at least two previous occasions that the employer knew (or ought reasonably to have known) about (the “three strikes” rule) and where the employer had failed to take all reasonably practicable steps to prevent the harassment.
These provisions were repealed in 2013; the consultation states that the reason for the repeal was that they were believed to be “confusing and unnecessary”. The consultation also commented on there being criticism of the “three strikes” rule. However, the 2012 Government response to the proposed repeal of these provisions paints a slightly different picture. In that response, it was confirmed that 71% of respondents were against the repeal; only 20% were in favour, although the response points out that all business representative organisations supported repeal. Whilst there was criticism of the “three strikes” rule, the criticism was, there should be greater protection for employees, with some respondents seeking a strengthening of the Act; the Government’s response was “But imposing additional liabilities on employers would go against our commitments to support growth and economic recovery.”
The Government is now indicating that new provisions will be introduced to counter third-party harassment. It remains unclear at this stage whether a previous incident of harassment will be required before the provisions will bite (although no respondents were in favour of reinstating the “three strikes” rule). The proposals would also allow employers to rely on having taken all reasonable steps as a defence to such claims.
Interns and volunteers
The consultation considered whether interns and volunteers should be covered by the sexual harassment provisions of the Act. Whilst 80% of respondents were in agreement with this approach, the Government’s response is a little unclear as to whether any further steps will be taken here.
Regarding interns, the Government’s approach appears to assume that interns would be protected either as employees or as workers and so no further change is required. For volunteers, the Government sought to distinguish between those volunteering in a formal capacity and those volunteering in a more ad hoc way, for example for a one-off event. However, whilst the response indicates that extending protection from harassment for formal volunteers may seem “proportionate”, the response does not go on to indicate that such protections will be introduced and instead may simply form part of any wider future review of the Act. In the meantime, employers are encouraged to have anti-harassment policies which cover all “staff” as a matter of good practice.
The consultation looked at whether the current three-month time limit (subject to any applicable ACAS-conciliation extension) for bringing claims of sexual harassment was too short. 59% of respondents thought that it was.
The Government’s response confirms that it will be “looking closely” at this issue. However, this doesn’t seem to be something that will be happening any time soon, given the pressures currently being faced by the employment tribunal service. The Government has indicated that “restoring its existing levels of service” need to be prioritised before any “additional loading” is added to employment tribunals, particularly as any increase in time limits would be highly likely to be applied to all claims under the Act, not just sexual harassment claims. Should an increase in time limits be introduced in the future, the response indicates that a 6-month limit, rather than a 12-month limit, would be favoured.
Lastly, the response appears to rule out a number of other suggested changes – there is no current Government appetite for “naming and shaming” (in the context of sexual harassment complaints at least), introducing a new body to which employees could raise anonymous complaints, or reinstating the ability of Employment Tribunals to make wider recommendations to employers.
Based on the response, it appears that some changes are going ahead to attempt to address sexual harassment in the workplace. Quite when parliamentary time will allow this, or what the fine details will be, remains to be seen.
+44 (0)115 976 6033
You may be interested in...
Gender pay gap reporting – what are my obligations?
Employment claims: the new rates and limits from 6 April 2023
Plans to amend NHS pension rules to bolster NHS workforce approved by government
Increase to 20 hour limit on supplementary employment for Health and Care Worker visa holders
New report highlights risk of sidelining ED&I in school trusts
Mopping up after a leak – how businesses can take steps to protect their confidential information
Wellbeing and financial considerations – practical solutions for challenging times
Browne Jacobson collaborates with The GLAA and University of Nottingham to tackle modern slavery and human trafficking
Teacher strikes – lessons learnt so far
Can toilet facilities amount to sex discrimination?
Consultation launched on minimum ambulance service levels during strike action
Opinion - Maternity services
Changes to redundancy protections for employees post-maternity leave
BMA issues medical locum rate card for junior doctors
Employee who refused to wear a face mask fairly dismissed
New toolkit to support safer recruitment in the care sector
Employment update webinar
Term-time school worker entitled to national minimum wage for unworked basic hours
Fire and re-hire – draft statutory code
Menopause and the workplace
Consultation on holiday entitlement – part-year and irregular workers
Government introduces new “anti-striking laws” to be discussed in Parliament
Twitter facing employment claims following mass redundanciesNews that Twitter is being threatened with multiple claims by UK employees following mass redundancies provides a reminder of the risks that comes with an employer implementing large scale redundancy exercises.
Industrial Action and Minimum Service Levels
Discrimination comes of age
Legal Update - Shared Insights
Shared Insights: Looking ahead to 2023 – what Health and Care employers need to know
Rising Employment Tribunal backlog
Official statistics demonstrate a new wave of age discrimination claims
Menopause and the NHS workforce addressing the female brain drain…
4-day working week a success?The Covid-19 pandemic drastically changed the world’s way of working, with increased flexibility being greatly desired by employees. Earlier on in the year, a number of organisations trialled the concept of a 4-day working week – which has clearly been a success for many.
Coming of age
Official statistics show that 15,336 claims which included a complaint of age discrimination were received at the Employment Tribunals between March 2020 and March 2021.
Starling Bank employment tribunal
The outcome of the Employment Tribunal claim brought by Gulnaz Raja against Starling Bank Limited (1) (Starling), and Matthew Newman (2) was reported last month.
EU banks show slow progress on gender diversity
Rising wages ahead
In the Autumn Statement delivered on 17 November, rises to the National Living Wage and National Minimum Wage rates were announced, to take effect from 1 April 2023.
World Cup 2022 – how employers can avoid scoring an own goal!
The World Cup kicks off in Qatar on Sunday 20 November 2022, with the final taking place on Sunday 18 December 2022. Undoubtedly, this is a huge sporting event, and many employees will be keen to show their support for their favourite teams. However, due to the time difference, start times for the matches are between 10 a.m. and 7 p.m. UK time, which could have an impact on employers if employees who wish to watch the matches are scheduled to work.
Settlement agreements – what are the limitations?
Settlement agreements are commonplace in an employment context and are ordinarily used to provide the parties to the agreement with certainty following the conclusion of an employment relationship.
The Starling Bank disability discrimination decision
The vanishing dismissal
Where an employee appeals against their dismissal under a contractual appeal procedure and their appeal is successful, reinstatement to their previous role is automatic and does not require approval or agreement from the employee.
Settlement agreements – what are the limitations post Bathgate?
Settlement agreements in an employment context are ordinarily used to provide both parties with certainty following the conclusion of an employment relationship – but what happens when there is alleged discrimination after entering into a settlement agreement?
IR35 rules here to stay after government U-turn
A few weeks ago we brought you news that following the Government’s mini-budget it was confirmed that the off-payroll working rules (known as “IR35”) put in place for public and private sector businesses from 2017 and 2021 would be scrapped from April 2023.
Redundancy consultation and selection concerning expiry of a fixed term contract – EAT put the spotlight onto a ‘selection pool of one’
In Mogane v Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered whether it was fair to dismiss a nurse as redundant on the basis that that her fixed-term contract was due to expire before that of her colleague.