Sexual orientation

Case 1: The facts

Mr English brought a claim under the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations after many years of being subjected to homophobic banter by work colleagues. This stemmed from the fact that he had attended boarding school and lived in Brighton. He was not gay, and none of his colleagues believed him to be gay. The issue on appeal was whether he could bring a claim under the regulations.

The ruling

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that English was not protected by the sexual orientation regulations because the harassment was not “on the ground that” he was gay or perceived to be gay. The EAT said that the protection in the regulations is narrower than in the European Directive that they were required to implement. This protects against harassment “in relation to” sexual orientation. The regulations are therefore open to challenge in the same way that implementation of the Directive through the Sex Discrimination Act was successfully challenged by the then Equal Opportunities Commission last year (see Workplace Report, April 2007, page 12). The EAT gave permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.