Search
Close this search box.

Mere allegation of harassment may constitute detriment

Mere allegation of harassment may constitute detriment

In Olasehinde v Panther Securities, the EAT held that an allegation by an employer that an employee had harassed a third party constitutes a detriment, where the facts about the complaint were embellished, exaggerated and distorted, even if the employer ultimately takes no further formal action.

The employee, a black man, worked as a caretaker of residential flats. He assisted a female tenant with a furniture delivery and accidentally locked her out. The tenant telephoned the employer to obtain a refund of the locksmith’s charges. During the call she mentioned that she had felt ‘uncomfortable’ while in the employee’s presence.

The employee was called to a meeting and told that the tenant had complained that he was ‘harassing’ her. The basic facts of her allegations put to the employee were consistent with the complaint, but the tribunal found that the employer had seriously embellished, exaggerated and distorted what the tenant had said about the alleged impact on her.

The employee denied the allegations, which the employer accepted. However, the employee was instructed not speak to the tenant about the allegations which had been made by her. The employee was deeply upset and so angered by the accusation that the following day he went and complained to the police but they took no action. He later spoke to the tenant about the allegations and was summarily dismissed for failing to comply with the employer’s express instruction not to speak to her.

The EAT upheld the tribunal’s decision that the claimant had not been wrongfully dismissed, but overturned the decision that the claimant had not suffered a detriment. A ‘detriment’ need not involve any physical or economic consequences: the employee need only show that a reasonable employee would or might take the view that he or she had been disadvantaged in the circumstances in which they had to work. What occurred in this case went beyond a mere insult. Two directors called the employee to a meeting and allegations were put to him which embellished, exaggerated and distorted the tenant’s complaint. As the employer could provide no reasonable explanation for acting in this way, it must constitute a detriment.

Read more

Latest News

Read More

Rise in recruitment fraud must urgently be checked

28 March 2024

Newsletter

Receive the latest HR news and strategic content

Please note, as per the GDPR Legislation, we need to ensure you are ‘Opted In’ to receive updates from ‘theHRDIRECTOR’. We will NEVER sell, rent, share or give away your data to third parties. We only use it to send information about our products and updates within the HR space To see our Privacy Policy – click here

Latest HR Jobs

University of Warwick – WMGSalary: £23,144 to £25,138 per annum This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and

The Open University – People ServicesSalary: £57,696 to £64,914 + up to £8,000 per annum MRP supplement* This provides summary information and comment on the

Cardiff UniversitySalary: Competitive This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information

University of Oxford – Oxford Department of International DevelopmentSalary: £28,759 to £33,966 (Grade 5) This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered.

Read the latest digital issue of theHRDIRECTOR for FREE

Read the latest digital issue of theHRDIRECTOR for FREE