Show Notes
In this episode 254 of the employment law and HR podcast I cover a recent Employment Appeal Tribunal decision that sheds light on a vital question for employers: In this episode we cover: When is an employer responsible for the actions of an employee who sexually harasses a colleague? This case involved a hospitality recruitment agency and a worker (AB) who was sexually harassed by a colleague (CD) while travelling in his car. The central legal issue was whether the colleague's conduct could be said to have taken place "in the course of employment" under section 109 of the Equality Act 2010 a key factor in determining whether the employer was legally liable. The Employment Tribunal originally found that, although harassment had occurred, the agency was not liable, as the harasser was not "acting in the course of his employment" at the time. However, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that the Tribunal had not properly applied the test for what counts as an "extension of employment" and sent the case back to be reconsidered.
What Went Wrong at the Tribunal? The Tribunal accepted that serious sexual harassment took place but concluded that: The harasser was not working or carrying out duties at the time; The lift to work had not been arranged or approved by the employer; and The employer could not have known about the encounter. The Employment Appeal Tribunal disagreed, highlighting that the Tribunal had failed to consider several important factors, such as: The ongoing work-related connection between the parties (including prior lifts to jobs); The harasser's work messages, sent during his shift, that were sexually inappropriate; and The claimant's genuine belief that she was travelling for work when the incident occurred. These could all point to the events being an "extension of the workplace" — and therefore potentially within the "course of employment".
Why This Matters for Employers This judgment is a reminder that liability for harassment is not confined to the four walls of the workplace. If there is a sufficient connection between the conduct and work, such as communication during work hours, travel to or from work, or employer-organised events, the employer could still be found responsible.
Key Takeaways Think beyond the workplace. Harassment at social events, during work travel, or over work-related messaging platforms may still fall "in the course of employment." Risk Assess. Carry out a risk assessment to identify risk areas in your organisation and take mitigating steps accordingly. Review policies and training. Clear boundaries and reporting procedures for off-site conduct can reduce risk. Take complaints seriously. In this case, the Tribunal noted concern that the employer had done little to support the claimant or investigate the alleged harasser while a police inquiry was ongoing. Context is everything. Whether an act is "in the course of employment" will always depend on the facts but employers are expected to take a proactive stance in preventing and addressing harassment.
You can read the full judgement here: https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/ab-v-grafters-group-ltd-ta-csi-catering-services-international-2025-eat-126
Duty to take steps to prevent sexual harassment All employers, regardless of size and resources, now have a legal obligation to take steps to prevent sexual harassment. One of the steps you need to take is to train your employees on what sexual harassment is and standards of conduct required. We have a range of training options available to you, including our DIY employee training which is available for £15 plus VAT per person. If you want to 'bulk buy' 50 or more places we have a discount code available please do not hesitate to get in touch. You can access the training here: https://employment-law-hr-advice.teachable.com/ We also have full DIY resources for employers here: The prevention of Sexual Harassment at work Don't forg
More from The Employment Law & HR Podcast
How to use AI effectively for an Employment case In this episode 268 of the podcast, I look at the recent Employment Appeal Tribunal decision in Hancox v Sutherland and Others [2026] EAT 139, in which a judge raised important concerns about the use of artificial intelligence in Employment Tribunal proceedings. The case involved an employee who submitted a 300-page skeleton argument prepared using ChatGPT, prompting the judge to comment on the growing use of AI by individuals representing themselves. I discuss what the judge said about the benefits and risks of AI, why lengthy AI-generated legal arguments can do more harm than good, and the importance of checking the accuracy of anything submitted to a Tribunal. I also consider what this decision means for employees, employers and HR professionals, and why AI can be a useful tool but should not replace sound legal advice and judgment. In this episode, we cover: The background to the Hancox case and the 300-page ChatGPT-generated argument. The judge's comments about AI and access to justice. The risks of inaccurate legal arguments and invented case law. The responsibilities of individuals using AI in Tribunal proceedings. Practical lessons for employers and employees dealing with AI-generated grievances and claims. Other Employment Tribunal cases that have referenced AI use. Rollo v Marstons Trading Ltd X v Secretary of State for Justice You can read the full judgment here: Hancox v Sutherland and Others [2026] EAT 139.
From the 30th October 2026 employers will be liable for the actions of strangers! In this episode 267 of the podcast I am covering a key change to the law which takes effect from the 30th October 2026 and one that many employers could find themselves falling foul of! Put simply all employers run the risk of liability for and a claim for third party harassment if they fail to take action.
In this episode 266 of the podcast I am covering a topic that has been much discussed among the Real Employment Law Advice team and which is causing increased stress and time for employers and managers, the use of AI by disgruntled employees. We are seeing a significant increase in AI being used by employees to draft grievances, prepare complaints, challenge decisions and fuel their desire to pursue Employment Tribunal claims.
Employment Tribunal awards compensation for an employers failure to make adjustments in the probation period In this episode 265 of the podcast I am covering a recent case decided by the Employment Tribunal where an employee was awarded compensation after the employer failed to make reasonable adjustments in the probation period. The case of Ms Khorram v Capgemini emphasises the importance of effectively managing probation periods and the requirement to make reasonable adjustments for employees with neurodivergent conditions.
This is going to be critical for all new employees from the 1st July 2026 In this episode 264 of the podcast I am covering the critical change to how managers and employers deal with probation periods for any new starters from the 1st July 2026. The qualifying period for unfair dismissal is going to be the shortest period it has ever been from the 1st January 2027 and this means employers need to prepare and manage probation periods and the first few months of a new employees employment carefully and proactively. Managers need to be educated on this now! In this episode of the podcast I cover: What probation periods are Why probation periods matter What is changing from the 1st July 2026 Why you need a good robust induction and onboarding process The importance of setting clear goals and targets for new starters in order to measure their performance and progress as soon as possible How getting it right does not have to be hard but does take time and planning Why having good forms and workflows for the process will aid managers to get the probation period right