Search

How can we help?

Icon

Sexual harassment in the workplace

In the current age of the #MeToo movement, one would assume that any form of unwanted physical contact between a manager and a junior employee could count as harassment.

In Raj v Capita Business Services Limited, a male employee had brought tribunal claims that his female manager committed an act of sexual harassment or harassment related to sex when she “briefly massaged” his shoulders in an open plan office. The ET decided that this did not amount to sexual harassment (as it was not considered to be conduct of a sexual nature) or harassment related to sex (as there was limited evidence to show that the conduct related to the Claimant’s gender). The Claimant challenged the latter finding and the appeal tribunal has now upheld the original decision that the conduct did not amount to harassment relating to sex.

Whilst it was considered that the conduct was “unwise and uncomfortable” and that it was indeed unwanted, it was held to be a “one-off incident”, relating to a “gender-neutral body part”.  There was no evidence that the manager had acted in this way to other employees, male or female. Rather than conduct related to sex, it was found to be a misguided attempt at encouragement of an underperforming employee and therefore non-discriminatory.

A male employee had brought tribunal claims that his female manager committed an act of sexual harassment or harassment related to sex when she “briefly massaged” his shoulders in an open plan office.

Along with other recent decisions, this shows that harassment claims are both fact and conduct sensitive: to succeed, claimants have to satisfy every aspect of the legal test.

More importantly, it highlights the need for employers to have clear policies and training on anti-harassment and conduct in the workplace in order to avoid claims of this nature. For assistance with this, contact our employment team.

Disclaimer
This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

Author profile

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

Pub
  • 27 March 2026
  • Corporate and M&A

Shareholder Disputes: What to do when disputes arise – Episode 4

Join Stuart Mullins and Jack Hobbs for episode four of our Shareholder Disputes podcast series as they confront the realities of shareholder fallouts and share practical strategies for managing these complex situations.

art
  • 24 March 2026
  • Immigration

Spouse Visa – Is your relationship genuine and subsisting?

For years many couples have become frustrated by the requirements for a spouse visa as the rules and guidance are difficult to understand. A significant amount of applications are rejected on the basis of the applicant not providing the adequate documents to evidence the relationship requirement.

art
  • 20 March 2026
  • Corporate and M&A

Drag-Along & Tag-Along Rights: Why Every Company Needs Them

When starting a company, very few founders are aware of the potential issues around shares, share ownership and the implications of that when selling their company.

art
  • 19 March 2026
  • Privacy and Data Protection

WhatsApp in the Workplace

This article explores the potential risks of using WhatsApp for workplace communications, the implications for GDPR compliance and under UK legislation, and provides practical tips for employers to mitigate these risks.

art
  • 16 March 2026
  • Employment

Trade Union Law Changes from April 2026

April brings the next tranche of reforms under the Employment Rights Act 2025 including changes to the statutory recognition scheme making it easier for trade unions to be recognised in the workplace.

Pub
  • 16 March 2026
  • Corporate and M&A

Shareholder Disputes: Managing Shareholder Buyouts and Exits – Episode 3

Join Stuart Mullins and Nicky Goringe Larkin for the third episode of our Shareholder Disputes series, where we move from prevention to resolution—exploring what happens when a founder’s exit becomes unavoidable.