Employment Appeal Tribunal rules that comments about accent can amount to harassment

Summary

The EAT’s (Employment Appeal Tribunal) findings in Carozzi v University of Hertfordshire and another broaden the scope of harassment under the Equality Act 2010. Specifically, comments made about an employee’s accent may be ‘related to’ the protected characteristic of race, for an accent may be integral to a person’s national or ethnic identity.

Background

The appellant (C) was a Brazilian national of Jewish ethnic origin. She worked at the University of Hertfordshire, but she resigned before her probation period (twice extended) was completed. Upon her resignation, she filed a claim for harassment which relied on comments made about her accent.

Employment Tribunal (ET) decision

The ET dismissed her claim. They emphasised the need for a mental element, similar to one required in direct discrimination claims. This essentially means that the treatment/behaviour is because of the protected characteristic. In this case they found that there lacked a mental element, as the comments pertained to her comprehensibility and were not motivated by her race.

EAT decision

The EAT allowed her appeal on the grounds that the ET had erred in finding that a mental element was a requirement of harassment. They went on to explain that harassment may occur irrelevant of the harasser’s motivations, as the criticism of an accent could violate a person’s dignity. This does not mean that the mere mention of accents would amount to harassment, the facts of the case would have to be assessed.

Comment

This extended interpretation of harassment calls for employers to be more vigilant. There may be a need to update your policies for dealing with harassment as well as ensuring staff are given proper training related to workplace conduct.