Sexual Orientation & Sexual Harassment- El

Front 1

Whitfield v Cleanaway UK

Back 1

- A gay guy resigned and claimed constructive dismissal because he was teased for being "the only gay in the villiage", "the queen" and they brought him a pink t-shirt.
Senior management ridiculed him.
- He brought a claim of sexual orientation direct discrimination and won his case gaining £35,000

Front 2

Insitu Cleaning v Heads

Back 2

Sexual Harrassment - EA 2010 - section 25

- A manager said "alright big tits" to Heads at work and she complained and asked for something to be done about this. Not enough was done (probably because the manager was their son) and so she resigned. She then claimed direct discrimination sexual harassment and constructive dismissal and won her case.
- Sexual harassment can be a one time thing.

Front 3

Reany v Hereford Diocesan Board of Finance

Back 3

- A worker was not employed to work with young children because the bishop expected that he would be having gay sex (& not stay celebrate) while he was working because he was gay.
- Court said he had been treated less favourably because of his sexual orientation.

Front 4

A v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police

Back 4

- A transexual was not employed because they would not be able to carry out the duties to inspect females. But was okay not to employ her because it goes against public interest
Similar to Goodwin v UK.

Front 5

Goodwin v UK

Back 5

Goodwin was unable to gain her social security number to confirm her sex change and therefore she was having to pay National Insurance until she was 65 rather than 60.

In a judgment delivered at Strasbourg on 11 July 2002 in the case of Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom (application no. 28957/95), the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that:


there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights;


there had been a violation of Article 12 (right to marry and to found a family);


no separate issue had arisen under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination);


there had been no violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).

The Court held, unanimously, that the finding of violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded the applicant 39,000 euros for costs and expenses.

Front 6

Stuart v Cleavlidge Guest Engineering

Back 6

- Naked posters of women in an engineering garage
- New secretary says this is a form of sexual harassment
- The court said that some men as well as women could find this offensive and therefore its not sexual harassment.

Front 7

BT v Williams

Back 7

Ms Williams was employed by British Telecommunications plc (BT) in the company's accounts department. In 1994, she was given a very poor written annual appraisal of her work. An interview followed between Ms Williams and her senior manager, Mr Moore, lasting between one and a half and two hours, the purpose of which was to discuss the poor appraisal with her. Subsequently, Ms Williams complained to an industrial tribunal that she had suffered sexual harassment which amounted to sexual harassment.

there is no legal requirement that a chaperone should be in attendance at a meeting between a male manager and a female employee.

Front 8

Mrs E Hegarty v The Edge (Soho) Ltd

Back 8

The complainant was ‘made redundant’ from a mainly gay bar. However the Tribunal did not accept that this was a redundancy. Documentation indicated that the directors wished to ‘freshen’ up the Piano Bar in which the complainant, a heterosexual woman, worked. In fact, the Piano Bar formally reopened two months later. Those subsequently employed were exclusively male gay bar staff. The Tribunal was satisfied that this was unfair dismissal and direct discrimination on grounds of sex and sexual orientation. The burden of proof was on the employer to show that this was not sexual orientation discrimination and it failed to discharge that burden. An award of £3110.95, including £3000 for injury to feelings was made.
Commentary: This case is significant as it emphasises that the Regulations are ‘symmetrical’, i.e. they provide protection to both straight and LGB workers.