In Piepenbrock v London School of Economics a teaching fellow at LSE, brought a claim against his employer, alleging occupational stress. There were two alleged causes of the stress. Firstly, he alleged that LSE were vicariously liable for the actions of a graduate teaching assistant who it was alleged had harassed him both in the United Kingdom and on a trip to the United States.
Secondly, he alleged that LSE had failed properly to handle the investigation which resulted when the graduate teaching assistant raised a complaint against the Claimant.
The tribunal found that the actions of the graduate teaching assistant did not amount to harassment as her actions were reasonable. Further, whilst the subsequent investigation by LSE was not perfect, any failings were not sufficiently serious to give raise to a foreseeable risk of injury.
Dr Piepenbrock’s claim therefore failed on foreseeability and he appealed. In this long running case, during which the ET proceedings were stayed through separate High Court proceedings, Dr Piepenbrock brought claims for victimisation, discrimination arising from disability (based on anxiety and depression) and unfair dismissal.
In 2020, he sought to amend his claim by, among other things, adding 13 new respondents and introducing new claims for direct discrimination and harassment based on sex, disability, race and religion, for indirect discrimination based on disability and a failure to make reasonable adjustments, and for personal injury. The EJ allowed some amendments but refused others.
The EAT dismissed the appeal. The EAT found that the EJ had wrongly considered that these new claims added little or nothing to the existing claims but found that, even if this error had not been made by the EJ, he would properly have reached the same result and refused permission for the required amendments, given his findings that the new claims could and should have been brought at the outset and that allowing the amendments would involve significant hardship to the employer.
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.
