california employment law

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 makes harassment a criminal and civil offenses, it was to deal with the problem of stalking.

Section 1 - Prohibition of Harassment

A person must not pursue a course of conduct which: --

i) amounts to harassment of another, and
ii) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of another.

For the purposes of this section the person whose course of conduct in question should be aware that this is harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information over think the behavior was harassment of the other.

Majrowski v Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Trust [2006] UKHL 34

This case was an action by an employee under the 1997 Act against his employer in regard to alleged harassment at the workplace. The employee claimed that his manager had the obligation to them by the law and the employer should be liable for this violation.

That was not the case, the employee may bring with it because of the legislation. The allegations were of general intimidation, bullying and harassment.

The law is clearly a statutory tort, and the Court of Appeal had to carefully consider whether an employer could be liable for a statutory tort for which one of its employees, if the laws in question are not specifically for this liability. On the basis that unless the statute in question directs otherwise or there is a good reason why the policy principle of vicarious liability does not apply, the Court of Appeal of the opinion that there is no reason to reject the argument the employee.

The Court of Appeal was prepared to accept that, even though they usually assume that the law was introduced in 1997 to deal with the problem of stalking, but it was a law that deals with the prohibition of harassment in various situations, not only stalking.

The appellant NHS Trust appealed against the decision ((2005) EWCA Civ 251, (2005) QB 848) that it was a proxy liability for damages to the respondent (M) under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 S.3 for harassment by one of its employees in breach of s.1 of the Act. M, which has long been of the trust, had claimed that his manager had harassed, intimidated and harassed him during the course of their employment. An investigation by the trust had to establish that the harassment was. M had claimed against the trust for damages under S.3 of the Act solely on the confidence of the vicarious liability of their employees for the alleged violation of the statutory prohibition of harassment. The trust, based on the phrase "damages can be" "in S.3 of the Act provides that the award of damages under this section is discretionary, harassment and therefore should not be equated with a common law tort. The trust also provides that the Act does not on the job, but a legislative response to the public policy problem of stalking.

The House of Lords, that: (1) The principle of vicarious liability is not based on common law tort law, but also for the equitable wrong and violations of legal obligations. Unless explicitly or implicitly statute does not otherwise indicated, agents are liable if an employee commits a breach of a statutory obligation sounding in damages during the course of his employment, Dubai Aluminum Co. Ltd v Salaam (2002) UKHL 48, (2003 ) 2 AC 366, Nicol v National Coal Board (1952) 102 LJ 357 and National Coal Board v England (1954) AC 403 applied, Harrison V, National Coal Board (1951) AC-639 into account. An employer representative could be liable if the employee's behavior was closely related to the acts of the employee was authorized to do, and the behavior could be fair and reasonable, because by the staff in the course of their employment, Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd. ( 2001) UKHL 22, (2001) 2 WLR 1311 applied. (2) The effect of S.3 (1) was in breach of s.1 wrong, the appeal to the ordinary law, for civil injustice. The language permits "may be" apt was simple to expand or clarify the heads of damage or loss, for the damages recoverable. (3) Neither the terms nor the practical implications of the Act indicated that Parliament, the the exclusion of the ordinary principle of vicarious liability. S.3 With a new Parliament had action, a new civil wrong and the damage one of the remedies for this wrong. The Parliament had added harassment to the list of civil wrong, because it is regarded as the applicable law which do not provide sufficient protection for the victims of bullying. The prospect of abuse in cases of alleged harassment at the workplace was not a good reason for excluding vicarious liability. (4) Section 10 of the Act inserted a new section, s.18B, in the press and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, to assume that in Scotland, could represent an employer liable for damages to the victim of a course of conduct amounting to harassment of the relevant provision of the Act the 1997th Parliament could not have intended that the position should be in England.

Problems

The Act, however, an employee with hurdles to overcome, if a claim is to be this way. First, the 1997 Act prohibits only a "course of conduct" amounting to harassment, which means that a single incident of harassment by an employee will not be sufficient to be a liability.

Second: To be successful, an applicant that harassment as defined by the Act has taken place. This means, "" alarming "the person or the person seeking the" hardship "among others.

Thirdly, agents liability will be determined only if a sufficiently close connection between the person's behavior and the nature of its tasks, and where it is only reasonable, and hold the employer liable for the person's actions.

This is obviously an area of law that is very much in its infancy. However, it is possible cause for concern. An employee who brings a claim for damages in the Civil Court has two major hurdles to clear. The first is that any injury to "predictable" and the second is that, if the claim is based on a psychological injury that must be a "recognized psychiatric disorder," the substantial medical evidence.

Ian Mann - Employment Barrister http://www.employment-barrister-uk.com

http://www.13kbw.co.uk

13 King's Bench Walk Ian Mann was sent to the Bar in 2000. He practices in employment disputes, which both employers and employees. His employment practice covers the full spectrum of Employment Tribunal, High Court and the Appellate Body of work and covers all aspects of employment, especially discrimination.