Carozzi v University of Hertfordshire [2024] EAT169 related to a Brazilian national of Jewish ethnic origin who was working at the University and resigned during her probationary period, bringing a number of claims.
Amongst those claims, was a harassment claim on the ground of race. Her complaint arose out of comments around her accent which was very strong and made it difficult for her to be understood. These comments were found by the original Tribunal not to be harassment, on the basis that they were not motivated by race but were instead discussing her comprehensibility when communicating orally.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal overturned this finding, holding that looking for a motivation was wrong. Whilst treatment can be related to a protected characteristic where it is “because of” it, it can also occur where the alleged harasser is not motivated by the characteristic at all.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal noted that an accent can be an important part of somebody’s national or ethnic identity and criticising their accent could therefore be related to the protected characteristic of race, and violate that person’s dignity.
This case confirms the position that the test for being “related to” a protected characteristic can be satisfied by establishing an objective link between the conduct and characteristic, without the need for the conduct to be motivated by the characteristic. This makes it much wider than the “because of” or “reason why” test which applies in direct discrimination claims.
Employers need to train managers to make sure that they understand that picking somebody up on what might be a challenging accent to understand, is likely to get them into difficulty.
Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law
