Employment Tribunal rules accent-based comments can amount to harassment in Carozzi v University of Hertfordshire case

The Employment Tribunal in Carozzi v University of Hertfordshire and Ms A Lucas considered what the term ‘related to’ means in the definition of harassment. The matter found that commenting on someone’s accent could amount to harassment.

Case background

The Claimant, Miss Elaine Carozzi, was employed by the University of Hertfordshire as a Marketing, Engagement and Partnerships Manager. Her position was subject to a 6 month probation period, which had been extended twice. At the time of her resignation, it had not been completed. During the course of her employment, Carozzi was subject to comments on her ‘very strong’ Brazilian accent, including comments that it can be difficult to understand.

Carozzi issued a claim against her employer for race discrimination, harassment and victimisation. Initially, the tribunal dismissed all claims. Carozzi did appeal the tribunals decision,  of which two of the grounds were upheld, being harassment and victimisation.

Equality Act 2010 explained

The test for harassment under Section 26 of the Equality Act 2010, being A person (A) harasses another (B):

(a) A Engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and

(b) the conduct has the purpose or effect of –

(i) violating B’s dignity, or

(ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.

Judge Taylor’s interpretation of ‘related to’ in harassment

Judge James Tayler commented in his judgement that “I consider that the term ‘related to’ is designed to have a relatively broad meaning. The harassment provisions are designed to be pragmatic, balancing the interests of employees against those of their employer and colleagues who may be accused of harassment. That balance cannot be achieved by applying a limited meaning to the words ‘conduct related to a protected characteristic’”.

EAT decision

By this, the tribunal recognised that comments about a person’s accent could relate to their race if their accent is part of their ethnic identity.

Further, Carozzi’s claim of victimisation was upheld. The test for victimisation is covered by section 27 of the Equality Act 2010. Carozzi’s claim for victimisation arose from her request of a copy of the minutes taken during a meeting. Ms Lucas was aware that Carozzi had made a claim of discrimination and therefore refused to hand over the document to avoid supplying Carozzi with ‘leverage’.

The Employment Tribunal referred to various cases in their judgement and one in particular,  Lord Hoffmann in the matter of Khan,  “the purpose of the statute is that a person should not be victimised because he has done the protected act. It seems to me no answer to say that he would equally have been victimised if he had done some other act” and on this basis, the matter of victimisation was remitted for hearing.

Comment

The case sets a significant precedent for employment law by broadening the interpretation of harassment under the Equality Act 2010. The ruling establishes that comments on an individual’s accent can constitute harassment if the accent is part of their ethnic identity. Employers must now be more vigilant in addressing and preventing any conduct that could be perceived as harassment or victimisation.

Further guidance and support

If you need help navigating employment issues, Brachers Employment team can assist you with employee relations issues, through to helping with Employment Tribunal claims.

Our employment law solicitors are based in Maidstone and Canterbury and are ready to help with any legal advice you may require so please get in touch today.

This content is correct at time of publication