Cooke v Kings Security Systems Ltd is a reminder that because harassment is unlawful where it is ‘related to’ a protected characteristic, then the victim does not have to possess that characteristic if they are nevertheless personally humiliated by reference to that characteristic.
Cooke’s supervisor referred to him from time to time as “gay boy” in front of his colleagues, which Cooke found embarrassing and humiliating. The supervisor knew Cooke is heterosexual and did not perceive him as gay, but nevertheless persisted with the ‘Mickey taking’ which clearly related to the protected characteristic of sexual orientation. The tribunal therefore had no hesitation in finding that the supervisor had engaged in unwanted conduct for a reason related to sexual orientation which had the purpose of violating Cooke’s dignity. It did not matter that Cooke is not a homosexual – the term “gay boy” relates to sexual orientation. This case reinforces the need for employers to ensure that employees clearly understand the breadth of protection under anti-harassment law, particularly as individuals can be held personally liable.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
