Cart 0
Login
Northern Ireland
Vaickuviene and others v J Sainsbury plc [2012] CSOH 69
Published on: 25/05/2012
Issues Covered:
Discrimination
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Background In April 2012 the Scottish Civil Courts refused to dismiss a claim seeking to hold Sainsbury‟s plc liable for the death of a former employee. The family of the murdered employee argue that the company‟s failure to deal with a harassment claim contributed to his death.82A Lithuanian man, Roman Romasov, a part-time shelf stacker in Sainsbury‟s, had written a grievance letter to his line manager in relation to racist remarks that had been directed towards him by a fellow member of staff, Mr McCulloch, who was a BNP supporter. Nothing was done by Sainsbury‟s in relation to the grievance and two days later Romasov was stabbed to death by McCulloch. Romasov's family argue that Sainsbury‟s is partially responsible for his murder as a result of their inaction. They based their claim on the House of Lords' decision in the English case of Majrowski v Guy's & St Thomas's NHS Trust, whereby it was held that an employer can be vicariously liable under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 for harassment committed by an employee in the course of employment.Sainsbury's sought to have the family's claim dismissed by arguing that there was not sufficiently close connection between McCulloch's act and his employment to render Sainsbury's responsible. They maintained that this was essentially a personal dispute, not a matter sufficiently connected to McCulloch's employment to merit an employer's liability trial.However, the court dismissed Sainsbury‟s claim and the case will now proceed for a full hearing. This case may be extreme but can only reiterate that, for all employers, dealing promptly with harassment is absolutely vital. One simply cannot know how harassment, bad enough even in its "mildest forms", may end up.Employers should also be aware of the effect of the PHA generally, which can be used to bring claims against employers for up to six years after the harassment complained of, as opposed to the three month limitation for harassment claims brought under the Equality Act 2010. It doesn't require psychological damage to be proved - "mere" distress and anxiety will suffice. The PHA, designed to deter stalkers, is increasingly being used to target employers.http://bit.ly/KSbcoC

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Start your free trial now
Subscribe, or start free trial →
Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Subscribe or start free trial
Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 25/05/2012
Recent Case Law
Q&A
How to handle it
Legal Island’s LMS, licensed to you Imagine your staff having 24/7 access to a centralised training platform, tailored to your organisation’s brand and staff training needs, with unlimited users. Learn more →