Harassment under Race Discrimination Legislation


Employers would be wise to consider this article before bidding farewell to an employee

Author: Dennis Chapman
Reading time: 2 minutes

This article is 13 years old.

Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down

This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.

The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.

The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.

Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.

If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.

All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.

Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.

Our perception of harassment may be clouded by other areas of law where the idea of harassment involves repetitive actions by the perpetrator. 

In a recent case Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal the flavour of harassment under the Race Relations Act 1976 takes on a different perspective and all employers would be wise to consider it.  In that case a Director said to a senior employee who was leaving the company, “We will probably bump into each other in future, unless you are married off in India”. The employee claimed that amounted to harassment on the grounds of her race and indeed she won the case.  

The elements of harassment require an analysis of:-

(1)   Did the respondent engage in unwanted conduct?

(2)   Did the conduct either

a)     Have the purpose or

b)     Have the effect Of either                                               

(i)      Isolating the claimants dignity or                                            

(ii)      Creating an adverse environment for her?

(3)   Was that conduct on the grounds of the claimants race (or ethnic or national origins)?

Under (2) you will note that there are very wide possibilities to fall foul of the law.  There may be ‘purpose’ without ‘effect’ or ‘effect’ without ‘purpose’.

Reasonableness does enter into whether a consequence occurs and therefore the Tribunal should consider whether the person was unreasonably prone to take offence but in this case the tribunal felt the consequence was entirely reasonable.

Dennis Chapman

In remembrance of Dennis Chapman 1951 -2015

Read more by this author

Getting in touch

You can contact us via the form or you can call us on 01480 455500.