In Kingdom of Spain v Lorenzo, Ms Lorenzo, a dual British and Spanish national, worked in an administrative role at the Spanish Embassy in London. She alleged that she was subjected to discriminatory treatment and harassment by a senior member of the Embassy’s diplomatic staff, including disparaging remarks and unfair treatment in the workplace. Ms Lorenzo resigned in 2015 and brought claims for race discrimination and harassment under the Equality Act 2010.
The Spanish Embassy argued that it was immune from these claims, asserting that state immunity applied to the employment relationship because Ms Lorenzo was a Spanish national and had worked in a diplomatic mission.
The employment tribunal rejected the Embassy’s immunity arguments, finding that Ms Lorenzo’s role and the alleged acts of discrimination did not involve governmental or sovereign functions. Instead, the claims arose from private law acts related to her employment, making state immunity inapplicable.
This decision was upheld by the Employment Appeal Tribunal, which noted that employment claims are not protected by state immunity unless they are directly linked to the sovereign functions of the state.
The Court of Appeal has now confirmed this approach. It highlighted the distinction between acts of a governmental nature (such as national security decisions or recruitment policies for diplomatic agents) and acts of a private law nature (such as alleged discrimination in day-to-day employment).
The Court concluded that Ms Lorenzo’s administrative duties were typical of locally recruited embassy staff and did not involve diplomatic or sovereign activities. It also confirmed that diplomatic immunity, which is personal to individual diplomats, cannot be used by the state itself to avoid liability for employment-related claims.
This judgment highlights that state immunity does not provide blanket protection from claims under UK equality and employment laws. The Court of Appeal clarified that discrimination or harassment claims brought by employees will generally proceed if they relate to private law acts, such as the day-to-day management of staff, rather than acts of a governmental nature.
While the specific circumstances of this case may be unusual, the decision underscores the courts’ willingness to ensure that employees’ rights under domestic law are protected, even where claims arise in complex or diplomatic settings.
Employers, even in diplomatic settings, should ensure they have robust policies and procedures in place to prevent discrimination and harassment in the workplace. Clear reporting mechanisms, regular training, and a culture of respect and inclusion are essential to mitigating risks.
The Court of Appeal’s decision underscores the importance of treating employees fairly and ensuring compliance with domestic laws, regardless of the unique context in which an organisation operates.