Peninsula Business Service Ltd v Baker [EAT] 01.03.17 (Unreported)


Thu, 16 Mar 2017

In order to succeed in a harassment claim under Equality Act 2010 s.26(1) a claimant had to demonstrate, and not merely assert, that he was disabled for the purposes of the Act. Inquiry agents had not victimised an employee by carrying out surveillance, since they were unaware of any protected acts, and as the agents were not liable for any tort, s.109(2) did not impose any liability on the employer or principal for victimisation.




Category: Employment »  Disability discrimination. Keyword(s): Harassment. Area(s) of law: Employment.
Source: UKEAT/0241/16/RN

 

This material is for information purposes only and does not constitute any form of advice or recommendation by us. You should not rely upon it in making any decisions or taking or refraining from taking any action. Please contact Brodies at mailbox@brodies.com if you would like us to advise you on any of the matters covered in this material.


Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional  Valid CSS!

Free SSL Certificate