Harassment under the RRA

The EAT has handed down their judgement in Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal which sets out the approach Tribunals will need to take in respect of analysing whether or not harassment has taken place in light of the new amendments to the Race Relations Act 1976 (s.3A).

The EAT confirmed the following four points:

1. That previous case law prior to the amendments are not likely to be helpful and even more unlikely to be helpful is the provisions set out under Protection from Harassment Act 1997. (Para 13)
2. A Respondent may be held liable on the basis that the effect of his conduct has been to produce the proscribed consequences even if that was not his purpose; and, conversely, that he may be liable if he acted for the purposes of producing the proscribed consequences but did not in fact do so (or in any event has not been shown to have done so). (Para 14)
3. A Respondent should not be held liable just because the incident had the prescribed effect but in contrast it should be reasonable that such offence (or prescribed consequence) took place. (See Para 15).
4. Where the nature of the conduct complained of consists, for example, of overtly racial abuse the respondent can be found to be acting on racial grounds without troubling to consider his mental processes (Para 16).

This is a case which certainly could impact on other discrimination acts which contain similar if not identical definitions of harassment. Should you need any advice in respect of this case and its impact please email me on gda@hrlegalpartners.com