Frank Aliyu v Tesco Stores Limited
[2024] EAT 185
Adam Greasley-Adams v Royal Mail Group Limited
7 June 2023
[2023] EAT 86
Employment Appeal Tribunal
Adam sued his employer, Royal Mail, for bullying. The first court said no, and a higher court agreed, saying the first court followed the rules correctly.
Key Facts
- •The claimant, Adam Greasley-Adams, brought claims against Royal Mail Group Limited under s 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and sections 26 and 27 of the Equality Act 2010.
- •The claimant has Asperger's Syndrome and alleged harassment and victimisation.
- •The Employment Tribunal (ET) dismissed all claims.
- •The claimant appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
- •The appeal focused on harassment, time bar, and victimisation.
- •The claimant did not appear at the EAT hearing.
Legal Principles
Harassment under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 requires unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic, with the purpose or effect of violating dignity or creating a hostile environment. The test is both subjective (claimant's perception) and objective (reasonableness).
Equality Act 2010, section 26
Victimisation under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 occurs when someone suffers a detriment because they did, or are believed to have done, a protected act.
Equality Act 2010, section 27
Time limits for bringing proceedings are generally 3 months (for complaints under section 120) or 6 months (for reliance on section 121(1)) from the date of the act, though extensions may be granted if just and equitable.
Equality Act 2010, section 123
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The EAT found no error of law in the ET's decision. The ET correctly applied the legal test for harassment, considering both the claimant's perception and the reasonableness of the conduct's effect. The EAT rejected the argument that dignity can be violated without awareness. The EAT also found the ET's handling of the time bar and victimisation claims to be legally sound.