An overview of the UK Employment Appeal Tribunal decisions in sexual harassment cases 1995‐2005

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to present research conducted with legal cases of sexual harassment (SH) in Great Britain over the past ten years. The paper contributes to the equal opportunities literature since it offers a rare interpretation of longitudinal case data with important implications for law, policy, social science and, indeed, for the management of equal opportunities within organizations. The paper approaches SH both as an evolving legal issue and as a type of organizational conflict, with particular power influences and effects. Design/methodology/approach -The population of individual case records with a SH component was accessed via the BALII database for the period 1995-2005. These case records were content-analyzed using a framework of variables developed for the study. Variables of interest initially were identified from a review of the social science, law and policy-related literatures Findings -The vast majority (96 per cent) of workers bringing appeals of SH were female. The data suggest that claimants were more likely to be single than married. In many ways, the profile of respondents appears a mirror image of claimants. This is true in terms of gender (92 per cent are men) and also in terms of organizational power; the large majority of individuals named as respondents in SH cases are managers or professional employees. It is evident from the analysis that there is low reporting and high attrition rates of cases relating to claims of SH. Research limitations/implications -Given this paper examines appellate cases, it is important that the findings are set in context. The appellate cases tend to deal with questions of law, which may make these cases particularly unique from the run of the mill harassment cases. Whilst dealing with important legal issues it should be acknowledged that appellate cases are not necessarily representative of SH litigation in general. Practical implications -The paper contributes to the equal opportunities literature since it offers a rare interpretation of longitudinal case data with important implications for law, policy, social science and, indeed, for the management of equal opportunities within organizations. Originality/value -The paper concludes that management of risk relating to SH could be improved via knowledge of the litigation record. This means looking not just at cases that make law, but at the wider body of claims tested by tribunals. Analysis of these could open a window on SH in workplaces -illuminating how it operates, how individuals and organisations react to its experience and how employment tribunals assess claims overall.

Sexualisation and harassment in hospitality workplaces: who is responsible?

“…In New Zealand, 42 per cent of women in frontline hospitality roles are aged under 25 years (Whiteford and Nolan, 2007), and probably enjoy the lively and social environment of a hospitality workplace (Guerrier and Adib, 2000). However, young women are reluctant to complain of harassment in case of reprisals from customers and/or managers (Rosenthal et al , 2008), leaving a large proportion of hospitality workers vulnerable to abuse, and due to their personalities and ages, likely to attract it. Kensbock et al (2015) also found that youth and inexperience rendered workers more vulnerable to harassment, as these employees were unable to deal with difficult situations.…”

“…Agrusa et al (2002) described restaurant employees as 'outgoing, personable and energetic ' (p. 29) and posited that this explains the high levels of sexual harassment in their industry. Many young women working in hospitality tolerate verbal comments, touching, sexual harassment and physical abuse from customers because they may perceive they have no choice (Poulston, 2008a, Rosenthal et al, 2008. However, more experienced employees are better at distinguishing between their work and personal selves (Yagil, 2008), so are less vulnerable.…”

“…However, young women are reluctant to complain of harassment in case of reprisals from customers and/or managers (Rosenthal et al, 2008), leaving a large proportion of hospitality workers vulnerable to abuse, and due to their personalities and ages, likely to attract it. Kensbock et al (2015) also found that youth and inexperience rendered workers more vulnerable to harassment, as these employees were unable to deal with difficult situations.…”

The widening of vicarious liability: implications for employers

“…An analysis of EAT cases reveals that the majority of appeals are lodged by the claimant and that the most common ground for the appeal is based on the claim that the employment tribunal erred in its application of the law. The majority of appeals 40 per cent were dismissed (Rosenthal et al , 2008).…”

Sexual Harassment Judgments by British Employment Tribunals 1995–2005: Implications for Claimants and their Advocates

“…Aston 2000; Clarke 2006; Conaghan 2002; Dickens 2002; Gibbons 2007; Earnshaw 1993; Leonard 1987; Lewis and Clark 1993; McCrudden et al . 1991; Rosenthal et al . 2008; Samuels 2004).…”