158:
incessant mockery ("banter" trivialises it) created a degrading and hostile working environment, and it did so on grounds of sexual orientation. That is the way I would prefer to put it. Alternatively, however, it can be properly said that the fact that the appellant is not gay, and that his tormentors know it, has just as much to do with sexual orientation – his own, as it happens - as if he were gay. If, as is common ground, tormenting a man who is believed to be gay but is not amounts to unlawful harassment, the distance from there to tormenting a man who is being treated as if he were gay when he is not is barely perceptible. In both cases the man's sexual orientation, in both cases imaginary, is the basis – that is to say, the ground - of the harassment. There is no
Pandora's box here: simply a consistent application of the principle that, while you cannot legislate against prejudice, you can set out in specified circumstances to stop people's lives being made a misery by it.
157:
In my judgment it did not matter whether he was gay or not. The calculated insult to his dignity, which depended not at all on his actual sexuality, and the consequently intolerable working environment were sufficient to bring his case both within
Regulation 5 and within the 1976 Directive. The
85:
case on the question of whether a person can claim discrimination for sexuality without being (or without revealing that one is) actually gay. The Court of Appeal decided that it was irrelevant whether someone was gay or not or the bullies believe the person is gay or not, if the harassment has
136:
However, he then said that the claimant’s difficulty was that nobody thought he was gay (at 23), so that the harassment was not on grounds of sexual orientation at all. It was a ‘vehicle for teasing the
Claimant’ (at 24). He then said ‘without deciding the point, that the result may have been
106:, alleging that he had been the subject of homophobic mockery, but the tribunal rejected his claim because he admitted that none of his colleagues had actually thought he was gay. He was represented by Frederic Reynold QC.
261:
124:
103:
98:, was a heterosexual married man with three children who worked for Thomas Sanderson Ltd between 1996 and August 2005, when he left voluntarily. He went to an
246:
119:
At the
Employment Appeal Tribunal, Peter-Clark J held he was not persuaded any material difference existed between the "on grounds" provisions in the
241:
162:
251:
236:
174:
129:
256:
266:
120:
127:. He held the Regulations do not properly implement the Directive (at 21), as was held by Burton J in
145:
The Court of Appeal by a majority applied the
Directive directly, overturning the EAT's decision.
215:
149:
gave the first judgment, and dissented, saying there was no harassment under regulation 5.
8:
193:
99:
45:
133:
IRLR 327. So people should be allowed to claim even when they are not themselves gay.
146:
230:
82:
220:
209:
150:
95:
102:, claiming harassment in the workplace under section 5 of the
125:
Employment
Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003
104:
Employment
Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003
165:
agreed with Sedley LJ, and said there was harassment.
216:'Landmark rulings strengthen gay rights in workplace'
194:
English v
Sanderson Blinds Ltd (2008) EWCA Civ 1421
137:different on direct application of the Directive’.
262:Anti-discrimination case law in the United Kingdom
228:
114:
247:Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases
196:at bailii.org, accessed 17 November 2016
175:Employment discrimination law in the UK
229:
242:United Kingdom LGBT rights case law
13:
140:
14:
278:
203:
153:found that there was harassment,
130:EOC v. SS for Trade and Industry
252:2008 in United Kingdom case law
237:United Kingdom labour case law
187:
94:Stephen English, who lived in
78:English v Sanderson Blinds Ltd
70:Laws LJ, Sedley LJ, Collins LJ
21:English v Sanderson Blinds Ltd
1:
7:
168:
109:
10:
283:
115:Employment Appeal Tribunal
210:Sanderson Blinds' website
69:
64:
56:
51:
41:
33:
25:
20:
180:
89:
86:sexuality as its focus.
160:
121:Sex Discrimination Act
155:
46:Full text of judgment
257:2008 in LGBT history
267:Harassment case law
163:Lawrence Collins LJ
100:Employment Tribunal
81:EWCA Civ 1421 is a
74:
73:
274:
197:
191:
60:UKEAT/0556/07/LA
37:19 December 2008
18:
17:
282:
281:
277:
276:
275:
273:
272:
271:
227:
226:
206:
201:
200:
192:
188:
183:
171:
143:
141:Court of Appeal
117:
112:
92:
29:Court of Appeal
12:
11:
5:
280:
270:
269:
264:
259:
254:
249:
244:
239:
225:
224:
212:
205:
204:External links
202:
199:
198:
185:
184:
182:
179:
178:
177:
170:
167:
142:
139:
116:
113:
111:
108:
91:
88:
72:
71:
67:
66:
62:
61:
58:
54:
53:
49:
48:
43:
39:
38:
35:
31:
30:
27:
23:
22:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
279:
268:
265:
263:
260:
258:
255:
253:
250:
248:
245:
243:
240:
238:
235:
234:
232:
223:
222:
218:(20.12.2008)
217:
214:Afua Hirsch,
213:
211:
208:
207:
195:
190:
186:
176:
173:
172:
166:
164:
159:
154:
152:
148:
138:
134:
132:
131:
126:
122:
107:
105:
101:
97:
87:
84:
83:UK labour law
80:
79:
68:
65:Case opinions
63:
59:
55:
50:
47:
44:
40:
36:
32:
28:
24:
19:
16:
221:The Guardian
219:
189:
161:
156:
144:
135:
128:
118:
93:
77:
76:
75:
57:Prior action
52:Case history
15:
231:Categories
42:Transcript
151:Sedley LJ
169:See also
123:and the
110:Judgment
96:Brighton
147:Laws LJ
34:Decided
181:Notes
90:Facts
26:Court
233::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.