Blog
Court rules individual employees may be held liable in discrimination cases
Written by Jane Hallas on 15 May 2024
Vicarious liability refers to the legal principle that holds employers accountable for the discriminatory actions of their employees. Simply put, if one employee discriminates against another while acting within the scope of their employment, the organisation may be held responsible.
However, a recent case has emphasised that, where employer liability is established, individual employees may also be found personally liable for discrimination. The case also serves as an important reminder to schools to be aware of the risks when dealing with staff who may have “protected characteristics”.
Baldwin v Cleves School and others
In Baldwin v Cleves School and others, Ms Baldwin, an employee of Cleves School, brought claims of disability discrimination against her employer and two coworkers, Mr Hodges and Ms Miller. The claimant alleged that she was subjected to two acts of discrimination by her coworkers, and that this was connected to her disability.
The first related to an email exchange between Ms Miller and Ms Baldwin’s PGCE tutor, in which Ms Miller inquired about the claimant’s health issues, implying suspicion about undisclosed health problems. This led to a confrontational discussion between Ms Baldwin and Ms Miller. The second instance involved an NQT report completed by Mr Hodges, which included an unfounded comment that the claimant had “not acted with integrity at all times,” a matter that had not been previously raised with her and contributed to her eventual resignation.
The original Tribunal found these two instances of discrimination to be proven, holding the school vicariously liable. However, it stopped short of holding Mr Hodges and Ms Miller personally liable for their conduct. The Tribunal concluded that their actions, though misguided, were attempts to manage a complex situation and therefore did not amount to personal liability for disability-related harassment.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) disagreed with the original Tribunal’s conclusion regarding the personal liability of the coworkers. It held that Mr Hodges and Ms Miller were indeed personally liable for disability discrimination, in addition to the employer’s liability.
This decision was grounded in the principle that an individual employee cannot escape liability for discriminatory conduct if the employer has been found liable for the same conduct, unless the employee had been explicitly told by the employer that the conduct was lawful and they reasonably believed this to be true. This exception did not apply in this case.
The EAT emphasised that the Tribunal had already determined that the actions of the coworkers amounted to disability discrimination. Therefore, the Tribunal had no discretion to reassess the conduct differently when considering individual liability after having found it discriminatory in the context of the employer’s liability.
Do you need support?
Speak to us for an honest, no obligation chat on:
0345 226 8393 Lines are open 9am – 5pm
Significance and lessons for employers
For schools and other organisations, this case reinforces the principle of vicarious liability and the potential risks of individual liability in claims of discrimination, highlighting that both employers and individual employees can be held accountable for discriminatory actions.
It also underscores the importance of empathetic conversations and responses when dealing with employees’ health concerns that constitute a disability. Employers must foster a workplace environment that is aware and supportive of employees with disabilities, ensuring that any issues are handled with care and compliance.
Misguided attempts to manage such situations, as seen in this case, can lead to significant legal repercussions. The ruling highlights that employers must provide proper training and guidance to their staff to help them handle disability-related issues appropriately and lawfully.
Crucially, the EAT’s decision sets a precedent that if the conditions for individual liability are met, a Tribunal has no discretion to find there is no liability. It sends a strong message that employees cannot hide behind their employer’s liability if they engage in discriminatory conduct. This ensures a greater level of accountability and encourages individuals to act responsibly and lawfully in their professional interactions.
Related Content
BLOG
Equality and Diversity | Court Rules ‘Stale’ Training Not Enough to Defend Harassment Claim
BLOG
Social Media | Can Employers Be Held Liable for Posts Employees Make Outside of Work?
Need professional advice and support?
WorkNest can assist you in managing employees with disabilities and avoiding discrimination claims. Our Employment Law and HR experts can:
- Work with you to develop and implement clear policies and procedures for accommodating employees with disabilities.
- Train your managers to support staff with disabilities and understand their obligations.
- Support you to handle sensitive conversations, situations and grievances, including drafting letters and other documents.
- Provide guidance on reasonable adjustments, ensuring requests are addressed promptly and appropriately.
- Help you to manage any performance concerns compliantly.
- In the event of a claim, protect your business through independent Legal Expenses Insurance and specialist litigation support.
For advice and support, call 0345 226 8393 or request your free consultation using the button below.
