The EAT has provided further guidance as to what amounts to harassment, as Chris Bryden & Michael Salter observe
With typical clarity, Underhill J (as was) has recently added to the growing volume of case law which imposes objective gloss onto the provisions of anti-discrimination legislation. In Heafield v Times Newspapers Limited [2013] UKEAT 1305_12_1701 the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has given further guidance as to what may or may not amount to harassment.
In 2010, one the respondent’s editors shouted in the office: “Can anyone tell me what’s happening to the f*****g Pope?” This was at a time when he was awaiting a story on the then Pope, allegedly having covered up for paedophile priests in the catholic church. It appears that deadlines were rapidly approaching and the editor wanted his story. Mr Heafield is a catholic and presented claims to the tribunal which included one of harassment arising from this statement. He lost, but appealed to the EAT. His appeal was sifted out, but came before Underhill J on a r 3(10) hearing.
The Dhaliwal test
The case was brought
