Despite the successful appeal of the MacDonald case, a winning sexual harassment claim brought by an abattoir worker is a sign that tribunals are increasingly willing to interpret the the word ‘sex’ more widely to reflect European law and the Human Rights Act, writes Katie Gibb
In a recent article, Let’s Talk About Sex (Legal Week, 31 May), Anthony Fincham discussed developments which have occurred in defining the word ‘sex’ in the Sex Discrimination Act (SDA) 1975.
He analysed the impact Community law and the Human Rights Act have had in widening its definition and highlighted that our domestic courts are, of their own accord, already broadening their interpretation of the word ‘sex’ to include sexual orientation. Another recent case would appear to represent an extension of this trend. In the case of Chambers v Norman & Sons (10 May, unreported.), the tribunal found that a heterosexual man had been discriminated against by reason of the fact that he had been taunted about his sexual orientation.
The applicant was a 20-year-old man who was employed by the respondent to work in their abattoir. It was an all-male environment in which he was, at least initially, one of the younger members of the work force. His complaint was that despite the fact that he was a heterosexual man with a girlfriend whom his colleagues knew, he was subjected to unpleasant and personal insults to the effect that he was homosexual. Following a further prolonged bout of such teasing he walked off the site and brought a claim for unfair dismissal and sexual harassment. The respondent denied some of the allegations, but also attempted to justify the behaviour by contending that the abattoir was a boisterous working environment and that such behaviour was the norm.
