Jones v. ICS Cleaning Services & Anor [2000] UKEAT 811_99_1104 (11 April 2000)

Jones v. ICS Cleaning Services & Anor [2000] UKEAT 811_99_1104 (11 April 2000)

The appeal failed because the Tribunal found as a matter of fact that the appellant willingly participated in and sometimes instigated the conduct complained of, did not make it clear to the alleged harasser that the conduct was unwelcome, and there was no evidence of less favourable treatment on grounds of sex as required by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. The requirement for 'perceptible rejection' was not an error of law in the context of these facts.

Citation
[2000] UKEAT 811_99_1104
Parties
Appellant: Mr B D Jones; First Respondent: ICS Cleaning Services Ltd; Second Respondent: Mr K Trigg
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
11 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Full Appeal Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sex Discrimination, Sexual Harassment, Comparators in Discrimination, Burden of Proof, Workplace Conduct
Employment Law Discrimination Law Sex Discrimination Sexual Harassment Comparators in Discrimination Burden of Proof Workplace Conduct

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr B D Jones

Appellant

ICS Cleaning Services Ltd

First Respondent

Mr K Trigg

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Full Appeal Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was discriminated against on grounds of sex under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975
  2. 2 Whether the conduct amounted to sexual harassment constituting sex discrimination
  3. 3 Whether the requirement for 'perceptible rejection' of conduct is an error of law

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the Tribunal found as a matter of fact that the appellant willingly participated in and sometimes instigated the conduct complained of, did not make it clear to the alleged harasser that the conduct was unwelcome, and there was no evidence of less favourable treatment on grounds of sex as required by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. The requirement for 'perceptible rejection' was not an error of law in the context of these facts.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed