Home » Employment » In the job » Harassment of employees

Harassment of employees

Disclaimer – please read
This page does not apply outside Great Britain.
Last updated 3rd February, 2024.

The Equality Act 2010 specifically covers harassment at work, including by colleagues and managers. There are ways in which it may be possible to claim for harassment by third parties such as customers.


Technical guidance, 2020

In January 2020 the Equality and Human Rights Commission issued technical guidance on Sexual harassment and harassment at work (EHRC website). This includes disability-related harassment, not just sex-related.

For the status of technical guidance, see Guidance and Codes of Practice: Equality Act 2010>What is technical guidance?

What is ‘harassment’?

The definition in s.26 Equality Act is wide. “Harassment” is where a person (A) engages in unwanted conduct related to a disability and the conduct has the purpose or effect of
(a) violating another person’s (B’s) dignity, or
(b) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.

“Unwanted” does not mean that express objection must be made. Also a serious one-off incident can amount to harassment. (Employment Code para 7.8)

It is a question of fact whether conduct falls within (a) or (b). In Grant v HM Land Registry (bailii.org), 2011, a female colleague hinted to the claimant’s female line manager that she thought the claimant was very pleasant, and the line manager responded “Don’t go fluttering your eye lashes at him, he’s gay.” The Court of Appeal held this was not harassment of the claimant:

47. ….even if in fact the disclosure was unwanted, and the claimant was upset by it, the effect cannot amount to a violation of dignity, nor can it properly be described as creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. Tribunals must not cheapen the significance of these words. They are an important control to prevent trivial acts causing minor upsets being caught by the concept of harassment. The claimant was no doubt upset that he could not release the information in his own way, but that is far from attracting the epithets required to constitute harassment. In my view, to describe this incident as the Tribunal did as subjecting the claimant to a “humiliating environment” when he heard of it some months later is a distortion of language which brings discrimination law into disrepute.

An example of a tribunal case in which an employer was held liable for abuse and taunting by colleagues as regards a stammer is B v John Edward Crowther Ltd (2002). See further below Tribunal cases on harassment about stammering.

Subjective perceptions – being too sensitive?

If the purpose of conduct was to violate the claimant’s dignity or create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them, that is sufficient to establish unlawful harassment.

What if that was not the purpose, but the claimant says it was the effect of the conduct? The employer may argue it is hypersensitive of the claimant to view the conduct as violating their dignity or creating a degrading etc environment. Here the employment tribunal must decide whether it was reasonable to regard the conduct as having that effect. This should give the employer protection against a hypersensitive claimant, whilst also protecting a claimant who reasonably regards the conduct as degrading etc. The tribunal must also take into account the claimant’s perception, and the other circumstances of the case.

“A man with a stammer feels he is being harassed because his manager makes constant jokes about people with speech impairments. He asks his manager to stop doing this, but the manager says he is being “oversensitive’ as he habitually makes jokes in the office about many different sorts of people. This is likely to amount to harassment because making remarks of this kind should reasonably be considered as having either of the effects mentioned above [ie violating the worker’s dignity or creating a degrading etc environment for him].”
2004 Code of Practice: Employment and Occupation (pdf, archive of Disability Rights Commission website). Para. 4.39. This is no longer a statutory Code of Practice, and it related to DDA 1995. However, the present position should be the same.

Oversensitivity: more technical detail

The relevant statutory provision is s.26(4) Equality Act 2010. This says that in deciding whether conduct has the relevant effect, the tribunal must take into account:

  • (a) the perception of the claimant,
  • (b) the other circumstances of the case, and
  • (c) whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.

The courts have held that under s.26(4) EqA there is no harassment based on the effect of the conduct unless it is reasonable for the conduct to be regarded as having that effect within para (c): Ahmed v Cardinal Hume Academies (bailii.org), EAT, 2019. S.26(4)(c), say the courts, is not just one factor to be weighed against others. However as stated in s.26(4), the tribunal must also take into account the claimant’s perception and the other circumstances of the case.

The court in Ahmed said that s.26(4) EqA is not intended to mean anything different from s.3B(2) Disabililty Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) which read “Conduct shall be regarded as having the effect referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) … only if, having regard to all the circumstances, including in particular the perception of the disabled person, it should reasonably be considered as having that effect.”

This area is discussed in the Employment Code paras 7.17 to 7.19, and from para 2.27 of the EHRC’s Technical guidance on harassment, 2020.

“Did I stutter?”

Would it be reasonable to regard a colleague saying “Did I stutter?” as creating a degrading or offensive etc environment?

The phrase implies that stuttering/stammering equates to not talking clearly or lying, and is a “bad” thing: see Getting rid of “Did I stutter?” (stamma.org), 2022. People who stammer often find the phrase insulting.

It will depend on context, but I suggest that if the phrase was not intended to be degrading etc, repeated use of the phrase after the person who stammers has said they find it degrading etc is more likely to be unlawful harassment than a one-off use.

Conduct “related to” a disability

The harassment must be “related to” the disability. This reflects wording in the EU Framework Employment Directive with which the UK was required to comply.

Previously the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 s.3B(1) said the harassment must be “for a reason” which relates to disability. What’s the difference? Say the harassment is “because” the victim is not within the perpetrator’s clique, as evidenced by the fact that a non-disabled person outside the clique is also being harassed. If the harassment includes comments related to the person’s disability, or mimicking the stammer for example, this should now more clearly count as harassment under the EqA wording. That is so even though arguably the reason for the harassment – namely being outside the clique – is not related to the disability, and so might not have been within the DDA wording. (Facts taken from Abbey National v Fairbrother (bailii.org), 2007). This is in line with Employment Code para 7.10 which says:

“Protection from harassment also applies where a person is generally abusive to other workers but, in relation to a particular worker, the form of the unwanted conduct is determined by that worker’s protected characteristic.”

The Court of Appeal has since suggested – but did not have to decide – that words motivated by something else but referring to the protected characteristic (eg disability) could still be covered even if the test were still whether harassment was “because of” the protected characteristic: Unite v Union v Nailard: “Related to” – harassment wording. The reason for the act could be the subjective motivation of the perpetrator, but could alternatively be inherent in the act itself. For example, “where a speaker uses overtly sexist language, the link with the protected characteristic is in the words themselves and does not depend on his motivation”. (As to the main decision of the court in that case, see below Employer inaction as ‘harassment’ under s.26 EqA?)

In B v John Edward Crowther Ltd, 2002, decided under much older legal provisions, the abuse was triggered by an underlying workplace dispute but was directed at the person’s stammer. Under present law too, there should be harassment in that case even if the stammer was not actually the cause of the harassment.

The Employment Code at para 7.10 gives various other examples of how the words “related to” are intended to apply. So does the EHRC’s Technical guidance on harassment, 2020, from para 2.15.

Does perpetrator need to know of the disability?

Perhaps not, but this is unclear:

Hagi v Royal Mail (gov.uk), Employment Tribunal, 2023
The claimant had schizophrenia and other conditions. Bags were normally prohibited in the work area. However because of her medical condition she needed the medications and water in the bag. She therefore obtained permission from her line manager to keep the bag in an out-of-the-way place in the work area.

Another manager, who did not know of her disability, asked her to remove the bag. She refused saying she had permission to have it. The manager began to move towards the bag as if to open it or to move it himself. The tribunal said was insensitive in the circumstances. Things got heated between the claimant and manager.

The tribunal upheld her claim for disability-related harassment under the EqA. It was reasonable for the claimant to get upset in the circumstances because, unlike on the previous occasions when she was challenged by her line manager, she had by this time provided medical evidence of her need for the bag, and sought specific permission to keep it where it was. The other manager did not know that the claimant was disabled, or that the bag contained items related to her disability. The tribunal did not consider this prevented his conduct from being disability-related, because the reason why she had the bag and what it contained were disability-related.

Note: This is not an appeal case, so not a binding precedent.

Harassment related to someone else’s disability

Harassment can relate to someone else’s disability. The European Court of Justice decided this in Coleman v Attridge Law, 2008. The Equality Act’s use of the term “related to” is designed to reflect this. For example, harassment could relate to the stammer of a friend or colleague, or of one’s child. More on harassment because of association…

It seems that the harassment need not be directed at the person making the claim. The Employment Code at para 7.10 gives the example of a manager who racially abuses a black worker. The Code says the black worker’s white colleague could bring a claim of racial harassment if the white colleague is offended as a result of the racial abuse. The EHRC’s Technical guidance on harassment, 2020, at para 2.16(b) takes a similar approach. By analogy, a worker could claim if offended by abusive remarks made against a colleague who stammers.

Perceived disability, or no disability

Harassment can probably “relate to” disability without there being any actual disability:

  • It seems that harassment of someone who is “perceived” by their employer or work colleagues to have a disability can be illegal even though in fact there is no disability as legally defined (more on ‘perceived’ disability).
  • It seems too that harassment can be related to disability and illegal even if there is no disability actual or perceived (more on no disability, actual or perceived).

English v Thomas Sanderson Ltd (bailii.org), Court of Appeal, 2008
The claimant alleged that he had been subjected to banter and innuendo of a homophobic nature. Everyone knew he was not homosexual. The Court of Appeal held this could be harassment.
Also this and other examples are given in the EHRC’s Technical guidance on harassment, 2020, at para 2.16(b).

On a claim for harassment, the claimant might consider whether as an alternative to claim ‘perceived disability’, and/or that the harassment related to ‘disability’ even though there was none perceived – in addition to arguing that he actually has a disability.

Tribunal cases on harassment about stammering

B v John Edward Crowther Ltd, Employment Tribunal, 2002
A dyehouse worker suffered ongoing abuse from colleagues related to his stammer. They often laughed and pulled faces at him (he sometimes contorted his face trying to get words out). They made grunting sounds when he was in the vicinity. An operative said for example: “why don’t you do us all a favour and f**k off you stuttering twat.” The tribunal held the employer was liable for discrimination.
At that time there was not a separate claim for harassment. Nowadays the employer would be liable for harassment.

Also prior to the specific rules on harassment, a claim for harassment/verbal bullying of a person who stammers failed in A v Walkers Snack Foods, 2001. On the evidence the tribunal considered there had been no harassment.

Harassment by colleagues – liability of the employer

An employer will often be liable for harassment by an employee’s work colleagues, as well as managers. The main requirement is that the perpetrator was acting “in the course of employment”. See my page Who is liable under the Equality Act?

B v John Edward Crowther Ltd (above) is a case on stammering in which the employer was held liable for abuse by work colleagues.

Even in an event outside the office, harassment may be “in the course of employment”, so that the employer is liable:

“The phrase ‘in the course of employment’ has a wide meaning: it includes acts in the workplace and may also extend to circumstances outside such as work-related social functions or business trips abroad. For example, an employer could be liable for an act of discrimination which took place during a social event organised by the employer, such as an after-work drinks party.”
Employment Code, para 10.46. See also the EHRC’s Technical guidance on harassment, 2020, from para 4.18.

The EHRC’s Technical guidance on harassment, 2020, at para 4.52-4.53 points out that an employer must still take reasonable steps to deal with a complaint of harassment by one worker against another committed outside the course of employment, because of the principles discussed below under Harassment by third parties, such as customers or suppliers.

Harassment by third parties, such as customers or suppliers

Before 1st October 2013 there were specific provisions (EqA s.40(2)-(4)) which in some circumstances made the employer liable for harassment by third parties, for example its customers and suppliers. However, this provision was repealed by the Coalition Government. The Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023, as originally proposed, was going to reinstate specific protection for third-party harassment, but this was taken out of the Bill in Parliament.

The position now is more complex. In considering whether the employer is liable for harassment by third parties (basically people other than its own employees and agents), one has to consider whether the harassment or, more often, inaction by the employer in tackling it can fall within various possible types of claim:

In any event the employee could complain to the employer and potentially raise a grievance internally about the bullying.

Employer inaction as “harassment” under s.26 EqA?

The Court of Appeal held in Unite the Union v Nailard (below) that employers’ liability for harassment by third parties (ie not agents of the employer) under s.26 EqA is limited to where the employer has a discriminatory motivation for not taking action against the harassment. The manager’s failure to take action can be “unwanted conduct” within s.26, but the failure is not “related to” disability etc unless the manager has a discriminatory motivation. A possible example of discriminatory motivation:

A person who stammers working in a library is told by a customer “You shouldn’t have a job if you can’t talk properly”. When the person reports this to his boss, the response is “Well you’ve got to expect some stick like that with a stammer”. On a future occasion the customer makes further insulting comments about the stammer. The library may be liable for harassment related to disability as the manager thinks people who stammer should put up with abuse. It could be argued that his lack of action, which has created an offensive environment for the worker, is motivated by the worker’s disability. (Arguably, what the manager said may also be harassment in its own right).
This example is adapted from an example on race discrimination at para 4.36 of the EHRC’s Technical guidance on harassment, 2020.

As to possible types of claim if the employer does not have a discriminatory motivation, see below Indirect discrimination? and Other types of claim for third-party harassment?.

Unite the Union v Nailard, Court of Appeal, 2018
An employee of the union suffered sexual harassment by elected officers who were not employees. She sought to argue – unsuccessfully – that the failure by the union’s managers to act sufficiently firmly and decisively against the harassment, despite her complaints about it, was itself harassment or direct discrimination. (The union had just proposed to transfer her elsewhere.)

The harassment by the union officers was related to sex, but the Court of Appeal held this did not mean the managers’ failure take action against it was related to (or because of) sex. The tribunal had to look at the motivation of the managers. The employer, and indeed the individual decision-taker, would be liable for harassment or direct discrimination under the EqA if the mental processes of the decision-taker(s) in failing to act were found (with the assistance of the shift in burden of proof if necessary) to have been significantly influenced, consciously or unconsciously, by the relevant protected characteristic.

She also claimed constructive dismissal, having resigned when the employer proposed to transfer her. The employment tribunal upheld this claim and that decision was not appealed (EAT decision (bailii.org) at §10). The tribunal found the union’s failure to deal firmly and decisively with the officers concerned was a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence; it said that the decision to transfer her was the “last straw”. Quite apart from the EqA, the claimant was therefore entitled to compensation for unfair dismissal.

Note: She succeeded in her claim that the officials were agents of the union, so the union was liable for the harassment by them in that way (see Who is liable under the Equality Act?>Agents). However the case is important as regards liability for harassment by third parties such as customers or suppliers who are not agents of the employer.

This Court of Appeal decision is difficult to reconcile with government statements in Parliamentary debates on the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 which repealed EqA s.40(2)-(4). For example:

“…Therefore, employers will continue to be liable for harassment of their employees by a third party even once the ‘three strikes’ provision has gone. That may be the case, for example, when an employer knows that a customer has repeatedly harassed an employee but has not taken reasonable steps to prevent it from happening again. Those protections will remain. …”
Jo Swinson, then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs, Hansard 16th October 2012 (parliament.uk). See also Baroness Stowell, Hansard 14th January 2013 (parliament.uk), col GC127.

Third-party harassment: Indirect discrimination?

Even though an employer does not have a discriminatory motivation (as required for s.26 EqA, above), an employer may be liable for indirect discrimination under s.19 EqA. The EHRC’s Technical guidance on harassment says –

“4.38 It is possible that inaction or a particular way of dealing with complaints of third party harassment could amount to indirect discrimination. This occurs when a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) is applied in the same way, for all workers or a group of workers, but has the effect of putting workers sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage. It does not matter that the employer did not intend to disadvantage the workers.

“4.39 If a PCP is applied and puts workers sharing a characteristic at a disadvantage, then it will be unlawful unless the employer can justify it. That is, prove that they have a legitimate aim in applying the PCP, and that the PCP was a proportionate way to achieve that aim.”
EHRs Technical guidance on harassment, 2020

The EHRC Technical guidance goes on to give an example:

“A hotel worker complains that she has been sexually harassed by a customer. Her employer says she does not take action in response to complaints about sexual harassment by third parties, as she feels that she is not responsible for what third parties do and ‘the customer comes first’. The employer would take no action regardless of whether the person harassed is a man or a woman. This practice places women at a particular disadvantage in comparison to men as statistics show that women are more likely to be sexually harassed at work than men. It is unlikely that the employer will be able to justify her practice of taking no action as she does not have a legitimate aim. It is not a legitimate aim to prioritise her customers over the safety of her workers.”
Para 4.42, EHRCs Technical guidance on harassment, 2020

In the case of disability, the claimant would have to show on a balance of probabilities (ie more likely than not) that the employer’s practice or other PCP puts people with the relevant disability (eg a speech impairment?) at a particular disadvantage in comparison with people who do not have that disability.

An example of a successful claim for indirect discrimination in respect of third-party harassment is Bessong below, There the practice challenged was the employer’s failure to ensure that all staff reported each and every incident of racial abuse by patients on an incident reporting form. The employment tribunal decision that the employer was liable for indirect discrimination was not appealed. Its decision therefore stands, but is not a binding precedent because there was no appeal decision on it.

Bessong v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust, EAT, 2019
The claimant was a mental health nurse in a secure residential unit for men sectioned under the Mental Health Act. He was subject to a serious assault by a patient accompanied by racist abuse. This included the patient calling him a “f***ing black”. The employer made a record of the assault, but an incident report form made no mention or the racist element.

The EAT upheld the tribunal decision that the employer was not liable for harassment under s.26 EqA because its inaction was not related to race. As held in Unite v Union v Nailard above, it was not enough that the harassment by the patient related to race.

However the employment tribunal decision that the employer was liable for indirect discrimination was not appealed, and so stands. The discriminatory practice of the employer was failing to ensure that all staff reported each and every incident of racial abuse by patients on an incident reporting form. This failure had led to many black staff seeing it as pointless to report every racist incident, and the incident report system fell into disrepute. The tribunal listed steps which the employer should have taken to reinforce the message to staff that they should do an incident report after every racist incident.

Future cases will need to clarify the position on indirect discrimination in this context.

If a worker with a protected characteristic could claim indirect discrimination for the employer’s practice of failing to take sufficient action against harassment, it is possible that any other worker of the employer (harassed for some non-protected reason) may also be able to do so, under s.19A EqA from 1st January 2024, and quite possibly before that date. See Indirect discrimination>If claimant does not even have an impairment.

What about other types of claim for third party harassment…..

Third-party harassment: Constructive dismissal

If employers fail to comply with their implied contractual duty of trust and confidence or their common law duty of care in relation to an employee who has been subjected to third-party harassment, this could amount to a breach of contract entitling the employee to resign and claim that he or she was constructively dismissed. However this requires the employee to resign to bring a claim. See also paragraph 4.49 of the EHRCs Technical guidance on harassment 2020.

A constructive dismissal claim succeeded in Unite the Union v Nailard above. The employer’s failure to deal firmly and decisively with the officers concerned was a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.

Third-party harassment: Health and safety at work

The EHRCs Technical guidance on harassment 2020, from para 4.44, advises that the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (HSWA) may apply where workers are subject to third party violence while carrying out their work. It says “Third party violence may take the form of physical or verbal abuse with the effect of causing physical or psychological harm to the worker.” Employers “are required to assess risks to their workers including reasonably foreseeable risks of third party violence. Employers should identify reasonably practicable organisational measures to prevent or control risks from third party violence as appropriate.” The guidance points employers to the Healthy and Safety Executive’s leaflet Violence at work (pdf, hse.gov.uk).

However, of itself, breach of the HSWA does not normally give the worker a claim against the employer. Generally it now creates a criminal offence rather than a civil claim (s.69 Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, from October 2013).

Third-party harassment: Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (below)

If the harassment is serious enough, the individual doing the harassment, and that person’s employer, may be liable under the PHA (below). So in the case of third party harassment, eg by a customer or supplier, the PHA does not impose any liability on the employer of the person being harassed, but rather on the individual doing the harassment and perhaps that individual’s employer.

Third-party harassment: Duty of care, breach of contract

Employers are under a common law (ie non-statutory) duty to take reasonable care of the safety of their employees. Also employers are under contractual duties to their employees, including the implied duty of trust and confidence mentioned above. However, as the EHRC comments (see Health and safety at work above), the employee would need to sustain “psychological or physical injury”, unless perhaps the employee resigns and claims constructive dismissal (above), whereas the Equality Act provides compensation for injury to feelings which is wider.

Third-party harassment: Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED)

The EHRCs Technical guidance on harassment 2020, from para 4.50, points out that to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty employers must give due regard to how taking steps to prevent third-party harassment may help to eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations.

However it is not easy to bring a claim under the PSED.

Third-party harassment: 2012 documents

Whilst the most useful official document now on alternative ways to claim for third-party harassment is probably EHRCs Technical guidance on harassment 2020, these issues were also discussed in the Government’s 2012 consultation document on the repeal: Consultation on employer liability for harassment by third parties (archive on nationalarchives.gov.uk). The EHRC’s response to the consultation outlined why the EHRC believed these alternative types of claim were insufficient: Equality Act 2010 – employer liability for harassment of employees by third parties: Equality and Human Rights Commission position paper, August 2012 (Word doc, edf.org.uk).

Relationship of harassment with direct discrimination and victimisation

See Harassment>Technical note: Relationship of harassment with direct discrimination and victimisation.

Protection from Harassment Act 1997

The PHA 1997 applies whether or not you have a disability, and is not limited to employment (below). It says that a person must not pursue a course of conduct which amounts to the harassment of another, and which the person knows or ought to know amounts to such. “Conduct” includes speech.

The PHA was originally intended to deter stalkers. However, it is now also used for workplace situations. It creates a criminal offence, but the victim can also claim damages in the civil courts for (among other things) any anxiety caused by the harassment, or financial loss resulting from it.

Importantly in a work context, the House of Lords has held that a ‘blameless’ employer can be liable for bullying of one employee by another, if the harassment was closely connected with the bully’s ordinary work duties. See Law lords give bullied workers wider scope to sue employers (theguardian.com), and the full House of Lords judgment at Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust (bailii.org), 2006.

Two limitations of harassment under the PHA are that:

  • “course of conduct” must involve conduct on at least two occasions; and
  • because it is also a criminal offence, the harassment must be serious enough to be potentially criminal.

On the harassment being serious enough, the Court of Appeal has said:

“….it seems to me that, since Majrowski, courts have been enjoined to consider whether the conduct complained of is ‘oppressive and unacceptable’ as opposed to merely unattractive, unreasonable or regrettable. The primary focus is on whether the conduct is oppressive and unacceptable, albeit the court must keep in mind that it must be of an order which ‘would sustain criminal liability’.”
Veakins v Keir Islington Ltd (bailii.org), 2009.

In paragraph 44 of its decision in Hayden v Dickenson (bailii.org), 2020, the High Court set out 12 principles it extracted from the case law on PHA harassment.

A claim under the PHA must be brought within 6 years. This period (called the “limitation period”) is much longer than the 3 months time limit for a harassment claim under the Equality Act. Where there is a course of conduct involving several incidents, it would have to be considered when the time limit runs from.

The Chop the Knot blog at choptheknot.wordpress.com has posts on the PHA and includes a specific page ‘Harassment damages‘ on levels of compensation under it. This blog is by Nick Hanning, who represented the successful claimant in the Majrowski case above.

Not limited to employment

Harassment under the PHA is of course not limited to harassment by an employer or by colleagues. For example, it could include:

  • harassment at work by customers or suppliers (above),
  • harassment completely outside the workplace, eg when one goes into a particular shop or cafe if it happens on more than one occasion, and even if it is by a customer rather than staff (though then it is the customer rather than staff who would presumably be liable), or
  • harassment by a neighbour.


Legislation: Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (legislation.gov.uk)

Other criminal offences

Apart from the Protection from Harassment Act above (which creates a criminal offence as well as a civil claim), harassment or abuse can sometimes be a criminal offence under other rules. Also, disability-related hostility is a factor which aggravates a criminal office. See Disability hate crimes.

What to do about bullying and harassment


Also Chapter 5 of EHRCs Technical guidance on harassment 2020 deals at length with employers taking steps to prevent and respond to harassment.

From the Employment Code, para 17.92:
An employer has a procedure that allows a grievance relating to harassment to be raised with a designated experienced manager. This avoids the possibility of an allegation of harassment having to be raised with a line manager who may be the perpetrator of the harassment.
See also para 5.34 of the EHRCs Technical guidance on harassment 2020, on employers defining multiple reporting channels to ensure that a worker is not required to report an incident to the perpetrator or someone who they may feel will not be objective.

20th anniversary of stammeringlaw, 1999-2019