The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that comments about an employee's accent can amount to race-related harassment under the Equality Act 2010, even without evidence of discriminatory intent.
Background
In the case of Carozzi v University of Hertfordshire, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) reviewed whether comments the employee was subjected to regarding their accent could amount to harassment under the Equality Act 2010 (Equality Act).
The employee, who was employed by the respondent but resigned during her probationary period, brought several complaints, including constructive dismissal, race and religious discrimination, harassment, and victimisation. The Employment Tribunal considered 36 separate allegations, but the appeal focuses on three main aspects: harassment related to the claimant's accent, the dismissal of a victimisation complaint, and alleged procedural bias by the Tribunal.
The initial Employment Tribunal found that the comments about the employee's accent were not race-related harassment because they were not explicitly motivated by the employee’s race.
Decision and outcome
The EAT overturned the Tribunal’s decision on the claimant’s harassment claim. It emphasised that conduct does not need to be explicitly motivated by a protected characteristic, such as race, to constitute harassment under the Equality Act. Instead, conduct may relate to a protected characteristic, such as comments about an accent linked to national or ethnic identity.
The EAT clarified that while discriminatory intent is not required, harassment occurs where conduct is connected to a protected characteristic and either violates a person’s dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, or offensive environment.
In this case, the EAT found that comments about the claimant's accent could meet these criteria and remitted the claim to a differently constituted Employment Tribunal for reconsideration.
Victimisation
The EAT also allowed the claimant's appeal on one complaint of victimisation. The claimant alleged that the University's refusal to provide meeting notes had disadvantaged her and was linked to her potential discrimination claim.
The Employment Tribunal had dismissed the claim, reasoning that the refusal would have occurred regardless of her claim. However, the EAT clarified that the correct test is whether the decision was influenced by the claimant’s potential claim of discrimination. It also disagreed with the Tribunal’s conclusion that the refusal was not a detriment, noting that the claimant could reasonably view the refusal as a disadvantage.
Learning points for employers
This case highlights the importance of maintaining an inclusive workplace and understanding the broad scope of harassment laws under the Equality Act. Comments about personal traits, such as an employee’s accent, can constitute harassment if they relate to a protected characteristic, even without discriminatory intent. Employers should ensure their equality and diversity policies are comprehensive and communicated effectively to all staff. Regular training on respectful workplace interactions can help prevent unintended offences and foster a culture of inclusion.
In addition, employers handling grievances or potential claims must take care to avoid actions that could be perceived as retaliatory or unfair. Transparent decision-making, proper documentation, and clear communication are essential to managing such situations appropriately.
For more information or advice, please contact Alastair Fatemi in our Employment team on 0117 314 5236. Alternatively, you can fill out the enquiry form below.
EAT clarifies harassment rules on comments about accents linked to race
on Thursday, 05 December 2024.
Alastair Fatemi
Court of Appeal confirms limits of state immunity in embassy discrimination case
Over 700 McDonald's workers allege discrimination, homophobia and sexual harassment
When is re-engagement appropriate following unfair dismissal?
Home Office provides new restrictions on passing immigration fees to sponsored workers
Tribunal erred in failing to address race discrimination allegation
Share this page:
Share this page:
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that comments about an employee's accent can amount to race-related harassment under the Equality Act 2010, even without evidence of discriminatory intent.
Background
In the case of Carozzi v University of Hertfordshire, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) reviewed whether comments the employee was subjected to regarding their accent could amount to harassment under the Equality Act 2010 (Equality Act).
The employee, who was employed by the respondent but resigned during her probationary period, brought several complaints, including constructive dismissal, race and religious discrimination, harassment, and victimisation. The Employment Tribunal considered 36 separate allegations, but the appeal focuses on three main aspects: harassment related to the claimant's accent, the dismissal of a victimisation complaint, and alleged procedural bias by the Tribunal.
The initial Employment Tribunal found that the comments about the employee's accent were not race-related harassment because they were not explicitly motivated by the employee’s race.
Decision and outcome
The EAT overturned the Tribunal’s decision on the claimant’s harassment claim. It emphasised that conduct does not need to be explicitly motivated by a protected characteristic, such as race, to constitute harassment under the Equality Act. Instead, conduct may relate to a protected characteristic, such as comments about an accent linked to national or ethnic identity.
The EAT clarified that while discriminatory intent is not required, harassment occurs where conduct is connected to a protected characteristic and either violates a person’s dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, or offensive environment.
In this case, the EAT found that comments about the claimant's accent could meet these criteria and remitted the claim to a differently constituted Employment Tribunal for reconsideration.
Victimisation
The EAT also allowed the claimant's appeal on one complaint of victimisation. The claimant alleged that the University's refusal to provide meeting notes had disadvantaged her and was linked to her potential discrimination claim.
The Employment Tribunal had dismissed the claim, reasoning that the refusal would have occurred regardless of her claim. However, the EAT clarified that the correct test is whether the decision was influenced by the claimant’s potential claim of discrimination. It also disagreed with the Tribunal’s conclusion that the refusal was not a detriment, noting that the claimant could reasonably view the refusal as a disadvantage.
Learning points for employers
This case highlights the importance of maintaining an inclusive workplace and understanding the broad scope of harassment laws under the Equality Act. Comments about personal traits, such as an employee’s accent, can constitute harassment if they relate to a protected characteristic, even without discriminatory intent. Employers should ensure their equality and diversity policies are comprehensive and communicated effectively to all staff. Regular training on respectful workplace interactions can help prevent unintended offences and foster a culture of inclusion.
In addition, employers handling grievances or potential claims must take care to avoid actions that could be perceived as retaliatory or unfair. Transparent decision-making, proper documentation, and clear communication are essential to managing such situations appropriately.
For more information or advice, please contact Alastair Fatemi in our Employment team on 0117 314 5236. Alternatively, you can fill out the enquiry form below.