Occupational Stress: Vicarious Liability Claim For Harassment Fails

The LSE has successfully defended a claim for occupational stress which was valued in excess of £4 million. The Claimant alleged that the LSE was vicariously liable for his harassment by a fellow employee ("the Complainant"). By notifying staff and students, the Complainant had allegedly acted in a malicious manner when making her allegations.

Background

The Claimant was employed as a Teaching Fellow. He was subject to a formal complaint from the Complainant, who was his Graduate Teaching Assistant. The Complainant alleged misconduct on the part of the Claimant following a trip to Boston and Seattle. The Complainant circulated her allegations to various individuals within the Defendant organisation and beyond.

The Complainant instigated a formal complaint, and the Claimant was notified. The Claimant was diagnosed with an acute stress reaction, unable to continue to teach and never returned to work at the LSE. The Claimant did not engage in the formal complaint process.

The complaint was subsequently deemed not proven.

The Claimant brought a claim for damages for psychiatric injury arising from these events. The Claimant sought loss of earnings for the duration of his remaining career due to the after-effects of the Defendant's alleged failures.

The claim was based on the following causes of action:

The Defendant was vicariously liable for the actions of the Complainant, who allegedly harassed the Claimant pursuant to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 ("the Act"); The Defendant's handling of a complaint against him was negligent; The Defendant's Harassment Policy was incorporated into the Claimant's contract, which the Defendant then failed to follow; The Defendant denied any vicarious liability, and contended that the handling of the complaint was reasonable, and thus, not a breach of contract. The Defendant also denied that the Claimant's injuries were foreseeable.

Outcome

The claim was dismissed, and judgment was ordered for the Defendant.

The Court found that the Complainant had legitimate grounds for her complaint, and it could not be said she was "acting in a malicious, oppressive or unacceptable manner." Therefore, her conduct did not amount to a breach of the Act.

Mrs Justice Davies did accept that stress was reasonably foreseeable stating that: "The nature of Miss D's complaint was serious and had the potential to severely harm, possibly end, the claimant's employment with the defendant."

However, the Court found that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT