Request A Callback

If you would like one of our representatives to give you a call to discuss your situation in complete confidence, please enter your details below and someone will call you as soon as possible.

[[[["field5","not_equal_to","I consent for my data to be used by Mediatelegal to process my enquiry."]],[[]],"and"]]
Your Name
Phone Number

Employment Law Case Review – Martin Mensah

Was the touching of shoulders sexual contact?

No. Not in Raj v Capita Business Services Ltd & another UKEAT/0074/19/LA

The ET found that the Claimant had been subjected to unwanted physical contact by his team leader. She massaged his shoulders on two or three occasions in the open plan office where he worked. This had the effect specified in section 26(1)(b)(ii) of the Equality Act 2010. However, the ET dismissed the harassment claim on the basis that the conduct was not related to the Claimant’s sex.

The Tribunal concluded that the Respondents had proved the reason for the unwanted contact was “misguided encouragement” and were satisfied that it was unrelated to the Claimant’s sex.

The Claimant asserted that the touching of his shoulders was “unwanted conduct of a sexual nature” within the meaning of s.26(2)(a) Equality Act 2010.

Having rejected the explanation of the team leader (that she had simply tapped the claimant on the shoulder), the Claimant asserted that the burden of proof should shift so that she should provide an explanation for the touching and that it was not related to sex in accordance with s.136 Equality Act 2010.

The claimant contended that in the absence of such an explanation 136 directed attention to whether the facts were such that, absent any other explanation for it, the ET could conclude that the massaging of the Claimant was related to his gender (stage one) and if so, had the Respondents shown that it was not, in fact, related to his gender (stage two).

The EAT rejected this argument and outlined that there is no rigid rule of law that the Claimant will always satisfy the stage one test and shift the burden of proof if the Tribunal finds the Respondent has given untruthful or wrong evidence about an aspect of whether the conduct happened or why it happened.

Unwanted conduct that creates an intimidating atmosphere will not automatically be harassment if the conduct is not linked to a protected characteristic or of a sexual nature.

This guest article has been provided by Martin Mensah – Head of Employment Practice Group at Atlantic Chambers. You can view the profile of Martin Mensah here.

Mediatelegal offers a comprehensive workplace mediation service, allowing employers and employees to resolve disputes efficiently. You can find more information here, and view our workplace mediators here.
Tagged with:
Posted in Uncategorised

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Did you know?

default image

A 2008 CIPD survey found that 51% of respondents use an external mediator to resolve people problems and conflict.

13th September 2016

| Website designed & hosted by Cyberfrog Design
Mediatelegal is a trading style of Why Mediate Ltd (Company Reg No. 09148466)
Cookies | Terms & Conditions