header-logo header-logo

17 January 2025
Issue: 8100 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Harassment
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: The proactive duty to protect employees from sexual harassment

203861
What extra steps should employers take when employees deal with third parties? In this week’s NLJ, Vanessa Kelly, principal associate at Eversheds Sutherland, dissects the new legal duty on employers to proactively protect employees from sexual harassment, including from third parties, which took effect in October 2024.

Her article covers how the new duty applies to third parties and how third-party commercial terms can be updated. She provides a useful case study to illustrate the new duty in practice.

Kelly writes that the new duty does ‘not create a standalone claim that employees can bring. Instead, claims for breach of the duty can only be considered by a tribunal where it has upheld an employee’s claim of sexual harassment. Where an employer is found to have breached the preventative duty in such circumstances, the tribunal can increase any compensation award by up to 25%’. 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll