The appellant had succeeded in his claim for sex discrimination arising from his orientation, but the EAT had reversed the decision. He now appealed against the EAT decision. Although he had revealed his sexuality in one post, he had chosen to delay this when moved to a different office, but it had nevertheless been revealed.
Held: The appeal failed. It is important to keep separate the privacy issue and the question of discrimination. Discrimination law cannot be used as a surrogate to enforce rights of privacy, and Article 8 rights were not engaged. The fact of the claimant’s sexual orientation might have been revealed innocently and properly in very many ways, and ‘there can be no detriment because having made his sexual orientation generally public, any grievance the claimant has about the information being disseminated to others is unreasonable and unjustified.’
Elias LJ said of the phrase ‘an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment’ that ‘Tribunals must not cheapen the significance of these words. They are an important control to prevent trivial acts causing minor upsets being caught by the concept of harassment.’
Mummery, Elias, Patten LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 769, [2011] IRLR 748, [2011] ICR 1390
Bailii
Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 3, European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Meek v City of Birmingham District Council CA 18-Feb-1987
Employment Tribunals to Provide Sufficient Reasons
Tribunals, when giving their decisions, are required to do no more than to make clear their findings of fact and to answer any question of law raised.
Bingham LJ said: ‘It has on a number of occasions been made plain that the decision of an . .
Cited – Regina v Birmingham City Council ex parte Equal Opportunities Commission HL 1989
At the council’s independent, single-sex grammar schools there were more places available for boys than girls. Consequently the council were obliged to set a higher pass mark for girls than boys in the grammar school entrance examination.
Cited – Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal EAT 12-Feb-2009
EAT HARASSMENT: Purpose
Tribunal was entitled to find that a remark made by an employer to a female employee of Indian ethnic origin referring to the possibility of her being ‘married off in India’ had the . .
Cited – Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary HL 27-Feb-2003
The applicant was a chief inspector of police. She had been prevented from carrying out appraisals of other senior staff, and complained of sex discrimination.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. The tribunal had taken a two stage approach. It . .
Appeal from – HM Land Registry v Grant EAT 15-Apr-2010
hmlr_grantEAT10
EAT SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION/TRANSEXUALISM
HARASSMENT – Conduct
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate Jurisdiction /Reasons /Burns-Barke
An Employment Tribunal accepted that 6 out of 12 . .
Cited by:
Cited – Heafield v Times Newspaper Ltd EAT 17-Jan-2013
EAT Religion or Belief Discrimination – The Appellant, a sub-editor, who was a Roman Catholic, was offended by an editor referring to ‘the fucking Pope’ when chasing a delayed article and brought a claim for . .
Cited – Quality Solicitors Cmht v Tunstall EAT 28-Jul-2014
EAT Harassment – Conduct – Single instance race harassment claim – one overheard remark, ‘She is Polish and very nice’ or ‘She is Polish but very nice’. The Employment Tribunal erred in law in (1) failing to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination, Human Rights
Leading Case
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.441395