The introduction of the new duty in The Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010), Act 2023 (the New Act) that came into effect on 26 October 2024 has been a big story in the world of employment and HR law for the past few weeks. The new Act introduces a duty on employers to take reasonable measures to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.
The protection against sexual harassment is a long-standing law and was updated last with the Equality Act 2010. However, the new Act imposes an obligation on employers to prevent sexual harassment by employees at work through taking reasonable preventative measures.
The tribunal can only consider allegations of a breach in this new duty if an employee’s sexual harassment claim has been accepted. This gives a stronger voice to a claim that is well-founded, and places a greater burden on the employer to prove they did all they could to stop the behavior.
The tribunal can increase compensation by as much as 25% when an employee wins an employment tribunal case for sexual harassment and it is determined that the employer failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the incident. This is significant because there is no limit on the amount of compensation. I’ve seen employers go out of business because of these claims.
It’s important for employers to protect their employees from harassment. However, the police have failed me in the past when it comes to dealing with the harassment that I experienced. This makes me wonder: Are we safer at the workplace?
I was walking my puppy in daylight, at lunchtime. It took me a little while to realize that I was being watched. It took a while to realize that I was being watched. A few stops and starts, as well as a few changes in direction confirmed it. From the moment I realized I was in trouble, until the police arrived nearly 45 minutes passed.
I did everything possible to ensure that the situation was not a dream. I changed directions, crossed streets, questioned my sanity. After you’ve done that, it turns into a escalating feeling of fear. Each time I spotted a member, they either went inside or got in their car and drove away before I could get to them. This guy kept trying to speak to me all the time. Ignoring my request that he leave alone. My dog is very friendly and I was unsure if she could protect me. But if she could, would I be at fault? I walked fast, looking for someone who could help.
The man was less than two feet in front of me with his hands stuffed into his pockets. Was he carrying a knife or a rope with him? I didn’t know.
I finally reached a local store where I approached a worker, and told him ‘I am being followed’. He told him to leave immediately. The perpetrator continued to stare at me and my shop-mate, completely unperturbed, even after I called the police. He didn’t care. The man in the store stayed with me throughout the entire time. He was also afraid. All of it was so bizarre.
The police arrived and had to first determine if there had been a crime before they could engage with the perpetrator. He was waiting nonchalantly for the police officers to leave so that he could go home.
In my entire life, I only called the police when I felt personally threatened. This happened when my home was burglarized with me inside and when I experienced stalking. Both times, the perpetrators of these crimes were found guilty. The police data should show I only contact them if there is a real crime and I’m in fear. However, I was “pre-qualified” to determine if a crime had been committed before they sent a patrol vehicle. This man was so frightening that I was scared to leave the house.
He gave two false names to the police so that they could detain him. They said they would contact me. After eight hours, I called to get an update. They had released him; he was diagnosed with a’mental health issue’ and no further action would be taken. I was not asked to give a statement.
Police claim that following someone isn’t a crime. It should. It should be.
Isn’t the time right now to review and update the police’s statutory duties to deal with harassing behavior to reflect the victim’s experiences, instead of the alleged mental illness of the perpetrator? It is not acceptable to allow a dangerous person out on the street because of a mental illness.
