Comments About an Employee’s Accent Could be ‘Related to’ Race Under Harassment Law

Thursday 19 December 2024 | 2 min read

In Carozzi v University of Hertfordshire and another, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that the Employment Tribunal was incorrect to find that comments about an employee’s accent were not harassment under the Equality Act 2010 because they were not motivated by her race. The EAT stated such comments could nevertheless be “related to” race.

When deciding if conduct is ‘related to’ a protected characteristic (race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, and marriage or civil partnership), the Court or Tribunal has a wide discretion. They can consider:

• The conduct inflicted on to the Claimant because of a protected characteristic. For example, shunning a person because they have had or perceived them to have had a gender reassignment.
• Conduct related to a protected characteristic due to the form it takes, for example racist or homophobic banter.
• Conduct that is directed at others but observed by the Claimant, for example in Coffey v Coople (UK) where the Claimant successfully brought a claim for sexual harassment after seeing two colleagues being sexually assaulted.

The context in which the conduct takes place will also be considered by the Court or Tribunal.

In Carozzi, the Claimant was a Brazilian national who brought various employment law claims against the University, one of which was a harassment claim concerning her accent.

The ET dismissed the claim. The EAT allowed the appeal, although on another point of law. Regarding the issue of the Claimant’s accent, the EAT concluded that there is no requirement in a harassment claim for a “mental element” equivalent to that in a claim of direct discrimination. It stated that a person’s accent could be an important part of their identity and could be connected to race. Therefore, criticism of an accent could violate a person’s dignity.

This case highlights that conduct can be related to a protected characteristic either:

• where it is motivated by the protected characteristic, or
• where, regardless of the conscious or unconscious motivations of the alleged harasser, there is objectively some relationship between the conduct or language used and a protected characteristic.