Pornographic material

Case 14: The facts

Rea Moonsar worked in an office with men who were downloading pornographic images. They did not show her the images, but she was aware of what was going on. She did not complain at the time, but brought claims of race and sex discrimination after she was selected for redundancy in preference to a white colleague with shorter service.

Moonsar's race discrimination claim was upheld, and she received £1,000 for injury to feelings, but her sex discrimination claim failed. She appealed against the latter decision and against the award for her race discrimination claim, which she said was too low.

The ruling

Moonsar's colleagues' behaviour could clearly cause an affront to a female employee in close proximity, the EAT said. This could be regarded as degrading or offensive even though she was not shown the material, and it did not matter that she had not complained at the time because it was obviously less favourable treatment. Her claim for sex discrimination was therefore upheld.

However, the EAT did not consider that the award of £1,000 for race discrimination was unreasonable, even though it may have awarded more if it had heard the case.

Moonsar v Fiveways Express Transport UKEAT/0476/04