Contents

Suspensions damaging to your health
Redundancy pool dries up
Date fixed in concrete
Full pay for holidays
Assumed discrimination
Knowing about disability
Putting a figure on it
TUPE and the public sector

Assumed discrimination

Coyne v Home Office [2000] IRLR 838

In this case the Court of Appeal conclude that an employer was not guilty of sex discrimination in assuming that a female employee was to blame for an incident of sexual harassment of which she was the victim, and in then failing to deal properly with her complaint of harassment.

Ms Coyne, employed by the Home Office, was subjected to sexual harassment from a colleague, Mr Smith, who had been seconded by the local authority to work with her. In response to Ms Coyne's complaint about the sexual harassment, Mr Smith's line manager took the view that the problem lay with her, not Mr Smith. Her own line manager agreed. She lodged a formal complaint about the harassment with the Home Office, who did nothing about it for two years.

The Employment Tribunal found in her favour, as did the Employment Appeal Tribunal. In their view, the Home Office unlawfully discriminated in taking the view that the harassment meted out to Ms Coyne was her fault. In the words of the EAT, this attitude was typical of the commonly held stereotypical assumption that a woman is responsible for harassment to which she is subjected by a man. The Home Office's treatment of Ms Coyne was based on her gender and the Tribunal were entitled to decide that her treatment amounted to unlawful discrimination.

In a majority decision, the Court of Appeal disagree. The fact that Ms Coyne's line manager took the view that the sexual harassment was her fault did not in itself mean that he was treating her differently on the grounds of her sex. Likewise the Home Office's failure to deal properly with her complaint of harassment did not necessarily indicate sex discrimination. The conclusion that the employer's view of Ms Coyne's conduct rested on sexist stereotypical assumptions was not supported by the findings of fact by the Tribunal. This case emphasises the importance of a Tribunal having the facts to sustain conclusions of discrimination.