Sexual harassment in the workplace has been unlawful in the civil sphere for decades. Fortunately, in recent years, more and more people, predominantly women have felt emboldened enough to come forward and raise the issue with prosecutors or within their workplace. That said, and however far we have come in ensuring that this societal problem is reduced, it has still not been eradicated in 21st century Britain.
The civil law preventing sexual harassment in the workplace is found in section 26 (2) (a) of the Equality Act 2010.
Section 26 (2) (a) provides:
A also harasses B if –
(a) A engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, and
(b) The conduct has the purpose or effect referred to in subsection (1) (b).
That means if a person engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature and that conduct has the purpose or effect of violating B’s dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B, then that will be actionable. The victim can claim against either the abuser, the employer, or both in the same action.
Time Limits: Under the Equality Act 2010, there is a short 3 month minus one day time limit to start ACAS early conciliation. This short time limit may be surprising given it is such a serious allegation and will present challenge personally, emotionally and professionally to the complainant.
Claims under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PFHA)
It would also be possible to claim against the person who carried out the sexual harassment in the High Court or County Court under the PFHA. This has a 6-year time limit. It is also possible to obtain an injunction against that person under the PFHA. It is also possible for a Court to find the defendant liable for a criminal action if the defendant breaches the terms of any injunction granted against any future harassment.
Coincidentally, the PFHA was enacted in part because of the death of Princess Diana and Dodi Al-Fayed.
Claims under Personal Injury / common law tort
It is also possible to claim against a person for personal injury as a result of any sexual harassment under normal common law rules.
In all cases above, it is possible to extend time limits. In an employment tribunal case, a judge has a discretion to extent time where it is “just and equitable”. In the County Court or High Court, the court has power to extend time limits if it is “equitable” in a personal injury claim to proceed out of time.
There are also criminal law provisions preventing sexual harassment in the workplace.
According to research carried out by ComRes for the BBC, 40% of women and 18% of men have been victims of some type of unwanted sexual behaviour in the workplace. This ranges from unwanted jokes to more serious sexual assault.
Secretary of State Rt Hon Elizabeth Truss, as Minister for Women and Equalities, carried out a consultation on sexual harassment in the workplace from 11 July to 2 October 2019. The main findings were:
- Many employers were supportive of a new duty to prevent harassment;
- Some consultees were supportive of protecting volunteers and interns by the civil law, which they are not currently protected.
- Many consultees were supportive of an extension to time limits for bringing claims against alleged abusers;
The Conservative administration enacted law, coming into force on 24 October 2024 to enshrine a new positive duty on employers to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has a statutory duty and the primary responsibility for regulating employers actions to combat harassment.
Allegations against Mohamed Al-Fayed, the previous owner of Harrods department store and owner of Fulham Football Club
Historical sexual allegations have been made against Mohamed Al-Fayed (deceased). Mr Al-Fayed owned Harrods department store from 1985 to 2010. It is alleged that he sexually assaulted or raped a large number of employees who worked in Harrods during this period.
The Equality Act 2010 was enacted in 2010. Before that, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 was the law. It was only in 1986, some 11 years after the SDA, that a British Court ruled that sexual harassment constituted discrimination following a complaint by Ms Jean Porcelli.
It must be stressed that the current owners of Harrods are in no way implicated in the allegations. They have set up a compensation scheme for ex-employers who say they were attacked by Al-Fayed. We understand this is separate from any legal action taken by accusers.
Head of Employment at Branch Austin McCormick Mr Elliot Hammer says :-
“Historical allegations of sexual abuse and harassment must be taken seriously. The team have represented many potential claimants in these types of cases and always seek justice for our clients”.
If you are a potential claimant against Harrods for historical abuse, please do not hesitate to contact our employment team at Branch Austin McCormick LLP. If you may have complaints or a claim to make against your current or past employer for sexual abuse allegations please do not hesitate to contact us and we can advise you on next steps.
For further information on the issues raised, please contact Mr E Hammer at: eh@branchaustinmccormick.com Branch Austin McCormick LLP
32 St James’s Street
London
SW1A 1HD
