Employers should be mindful of harassment in the workplace. This can occur when an employee or worker is exposed to unwanted conduct by fellow employees or workers. The purpose of such action is to violate their dignity and create a degrading, hostile, intimidating, and offensive environment. The Employment Appeals Tribunal, in the case of Logo v Payone GMBH [2025], held that the Employment Tribunal was wrong to dismiss claims for racial harassment due to its wrongful consideration of those claims.
In this case, a Black employee claimed his employers had racially harassed him. He cited examples of racial harassment spanning a number of years and provided three significant incidents:
-
At the works Christmas party in 2016, a colleague blacked up his face for fancy dress.
-
At a works dinner party in 2019, a colleague made an offensive racist joke.
-
In a work WhatsApp group in December 2020, an employee circulated an advert depicting an Aryan race utopia.
The Employment Tribunal recognised the first two incidents amounted to racial harassment but did not uphold the claim as they were outside the time limit. It also declined to extend the time on the basis that memories would have faded. It held that the third event was not race-related. The employee appealed the decision.
The Employment Appeals Tribunal held that the Employment Tribunal had made the incorrect decision. It highlighted that harassment claims can be brought based on the impact on the victim, regardless of the intention of the perpetrators.
The Employment Appeals Tribunal held that all the incidents had occurred and had caused the employee to be racially harassed. The Employment Tribunal had wrongly assessed the passing of time and the impact on people’s memories. Its failure to extend time also did not consider that the employee had been denied a remedy for racial harassment. The Tribunal was also wrong in concluding that the video did not amount to harassment. It focused too much on whether the person who posted the video thought it was funny, and did not consider the employee’s feelings as the sole Black employee in the workforce.
This case should serve as a strong reminder of the fundamental principle that harassment claims must subjectively consider the effect of the conduct on the victim, irrespective of the alleged harasser’s intentions. This is a crucial point often missed by employers when investigating harassment complaints.
Such claims can be avoided by implementing staff training and having clear policies on harassment.
If you need any further advice or help, please do not hesitate to contact the Quest HR Advice Line on 01455 852028.
