A woman school technician was subjected to a campaign of sexual harassment by two fellow male non-managerial technicians. She sought a transfer.
Held: The real question was whether the sexual harassment was to the detriment of the applicant within section 6(2)(b). The claim of sex discrimination succeeded.
Lord McDonald said: ‘It was argued on behalf of the applicant that the words ‘subjecting her to any other detriment’ were so universal that they covered acts of sexual harassment committed against her during her employment, without reference to any consequences thereof so far as her employment was concerned. The mere fact that they had been committed automatically placed her employers, perhaps vicariously, in breach of section 6(2)(b) and section 1(1) of the Act of 1975.
We do not think this interpretation is correct. The Act of 1975 does not outlaw sexual harassment in the field of -employment or elsewhere. That is left to the common law in an appropriate case. What it does outlaw in the field of employment is discrimination against a woman within the terms of her contract of employment on the ground of her sex. In certain cases sexual harassment may be relevant in this connection. An employer who dismisses a female employee because she has resisted or ceased to be interested in his advances would, in our view, be in breach of section 6(2)(b) and section 1(1) of the Act of 1975 for reasons arising from sexual harassment. Similarly if, for the same reason, he takes other disciplinary action against her short of dismissal, he would also be in breach. This action could be suspension, warning, enforced transfer, etc., all of which would be to the detriment of the female employee although open to an employer under her contract of service in a genuine case not associated with sexual harassment.
If this is a correct interpretation of the statute we ask ourselves what detriment, if any, within her contract of employment, the applicant suffered in the present case. The answer, we feel, is not far to seek. It lies in the fact that on 4 August 1983 she felt obliged to seek transfer from Bellahouston Academy to another school, and this was duly granted with effect from 19 September 1983. The campaign of harassment, including sexual harassment, with the objective of making the applicant apply for transfer had succeeded.’
Judges:
Lord McDonald
Citations:
[1986] ICR 564, [1986] SC 137, [1985] ICR 1977
Statutes:
Sex Discrimination Act 1975 1(1)(a) 6(2)b)
Cited by:
Cited – De Souza v Automobile Association CA 19-Dec-1985
The claimant appealed against a finding that there had been no race discrimation in her case. She had overheard a manager refer to her as ‘the wog’. She said that this was sufficient to mean that she suffered a detriment. The employer replied that . .
Appeal from – Strathclyde Regional Council v Porcelli SCS 1986
Mrs Porcelli was employed as a science laboratory technician at a school in Glasgow. Two technicians in the same department pursued a vindictive campaign against her for the deliberate purpose of making her apply for a transfer to another school. . .
Cited – Pearce v Mayfield School CA 31-Jul-2001
The claimant teacher was a lesbian. She complained that her school in failed to protect her against abuse from pupils for her lesbianism. She appealed against a decision that the acts of the pupils did not amount to discrimination, and that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination, Employment, Scotland
Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.270155