Pearce v Mayfield School [2003] ICR 937
Judgement for the case Pearce v Mayfield School
Table Of Contents
A lesbian teacher was called insulting terms like ‘dyke’.
HL said this was not sex discrimination within s.1(1)(a) SDA. The question was whether a male comparator (i.e. a homosexual) would have been treated differently by the employer. Otherwise it could not be found that the reason for the harassment was gender based.
-
On the facts there was no evidence that a homosexual employee would have been treated any differently.
It was irrelevant that the taunts were gender specific (i.e. to lesbians).
Lord Nicholls
Sexual harassment under SDA is only possible where the reason for the harassment was because of the individual’s sex.
The fact that the harassment takes form through gender-specific words or actions (e.g. calling her a dyke) does not mean that gender was the reason for the harassment.
The reason for the abuse was sexuality, not sex.
For Further Study on Pearce v Mayfield School
A collection of the best LPC Employment notes the director of Oxbridge ...
Labour Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge...
Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedSimilar Cases
Related Product Samples
These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
| Employment Law | Indirect Discrimination Harassment And Et1 3 Forms Notes (38 pages) |
| Labour Law | Labour Discrimination Notes (64 pages) |
Labour Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge...
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.