Harassment case highlights Risks in how employers respond

An employment tribunal has awarded compensation to two employees after finding that their employer mishandled the aftermath of a serious incident involving a colleague, despite the incident itself taking place outside of work.

The case arose after two employees encountered a colleague late at night outside one of their homes. The tribunal found that the individual exposed himself, behaved aggressively and attempted to approach their vehicle. The incident was reported to both the police and the employer the following day.

While the tribunal accepted that this behaviour amounted to sexual harassment by the individual, it ultimately found that the employer was not legally liable for the incident itself. This was because it did not occur “in the course of employment”, having taken place outside working hours and away from the workplace.

However, the employer’s handling of the situation that followed was subject to significant criticism.

Initially, there was consideration of dealing with the matter informally, despite the seriousness of the allegations. A formal disciplinary process was eventually initiated, but the tribunal noted that the employees who had reported the incident were not interviewed as part of the investigation. This was based on an assumption that a criminal admission removed the need for further enquiry, an approach the tribunal found to be flawed.

Following the individual’s return to work, the employees were required to manage their own working patterns to avoid contact. This included coordinating attendance and, at times, contacting HR to check whether it was safe to be on site. The tribunal found there had been no proper assessment of risk at the point the employee returned to work.

The tribunal was also critical of comments made during internal discussions, including a suggestion that one of the employees should “just bump into him and get it over with”. While this may have been intended to reduce anxiety, the tribunal found that it had the opposite effect.

Taken together, the tribunal concluded that the employer’s response created an environment that was distressing for the employees and failed to properly address the risks arising from the situation. This amounted to harassment related to sex, with compensation of £5,000 awarded to each claimant.

For employers, the key takeaway is that risk does not end with the incident itself. Even where behaviour falls outside the course of employment, the employer’s response can still create liability.

This case highlights three consistent themes. First, serious allegations should always be investigated thoroughly, regardless of whether parallel processes are taking place elsewhere.

Second, risk assessments must be carried out before allowing a return to work, particularly where there are safeguarding concerns. Third, the burden should never fall on affected employees to manage the situation themselves.

It also reinforces the importance of how concerns are handled at a human level. Comments that are intended to reassure can undermine confidence if they appear to minimise the seriousness of what has occurred.

With increasing expectations on employers to take proactive steps to prevent harassment, the focus is shifting from reactive responses to structured, preventative approaches. Training, clear reporting mechanisms and confident management responses are becoming essential in managing both risk and workplace culture.

Ultimately, how an employer responds after an issue is raised can be just as important as the issue itself.

Contact us at enquiries@121hrsolutions.co.uk and we can discuss and further queries you may have on this subject.

Harassment case highlights Risks in how employers respond

121 HR Solutions Ltd