Failing To Prevent Sexual Harassment: Employer Liability In Denmark – Employee Benefits & Compensation & More News Here

The Danish Eastern High Court has held an employer chargeable for
not stopping and coping with an worker’s sexual harassment
of one other worker and for dismissing the sufferer when she reported
the sexual harassment.

According to the Danish Equal Treatment Act, sexual harassment
is opposite to the precept of equal remedy between males and
girls and constitutes discrimination on grounds of intercourse.
Furthermore, an worker who’s dismissed or subjected to different
opposed remedy by the employer resulting from a criticism inside the
organisation (also called victimisation) is entitled to
compensation.

Background

The case involved a feminine administrative assistant at a window
cleansing enterprise. As a part of her job, she helped make sure that all
workers offered proof, yearly, that they’d no legal
report in accordance with the employer’s tips.

During her employment, the worker was subjected to sexual
harassment by a co-employee, a window cleaner, on a number of events
each verbally, bodily and by textual content messages and cellphone calls.

The window cleaner was ultimately dismissed for poor
efficiency. During the proceedings, the worker acknowledged that when
she discovered that the employer was contemplating dismissing the window
cleaner, she knowledgeable the employer of the sexual harassment.
Despite receiving this data, the employer waited a few
weeks earlier than dismissing the window cleaner.

After the dismissal, the worker discovered that the window
cleaner had not too long ago been convicted of assault towards a former
associate and had been ordered to carry out group service as soon as a
week. Instead of informing the employer concerning the state of affairs, the
window cleaner had referred to as in sick on the times in query.

The worker reported this to the employer, and he or she was
dismissed shortly thereafter. According to her assertion, at this
time she additionally elaborated on the extent of the sexual harassment.
The window cleaner was later convicted of a number of counts of sexual
assault towards the worker at her dwelling.

Dismissed for failing to ‘say no’

The worker’s commerce union issued proceedings, claiming that
the worker was entitled to compensation, partly due to the
sexual harassment, which the employer had not prevented, and partly
as a result of the employer had dismissed her unfairly when she filed a
criticism concerning the sexual harassment. The union burdened the actual fact
that the worker was dismissed the day after she described the
extent of the sexual harassment to the employer.

The employer submitted that it had taken a number of measures to
forestall sexual harassment, corresponding to creating a transparent-minimize division
between the totally different departments. The sexual harassment had taken
place within the non-public sphere and was subsequently not coated by the
Equal Treatment Act. Furthermore, the employer argued that the
worker didn’t inform administration of the sexual harassment, so the
employer couldn’t be held chargeable for it.

Part of the proceedings involved the grounds for dismissal. The
worker’s speedy supervisor defined that the dismissal was
based mostly on the worker’s failure to tell the employer that the
window cleaner was in reality not sick on his sick days and that he
had a legal report, regardless that it was a part of her job to deal with
the corporate tips on this regard. The worker defined that
the supervisor had instructed her she was being dismissed as a result of she was
unable to ‘say no’ in her private life {and professional}
life.

Compensation for victimisation

Both the district courtroom and, later, the Eastern High Court dominated
that the employer couldn’t be held chargeable for sexual harassment
that had taken place outdoors of the office within the worker’s
leisure time (it was additionally not liable in relation to this sexual
harassment as a result of the window cleaner was not the worker’s
supervisor).

However, the employer could possibly be held chargeable for the sexual
harassment that had taken place throughout working hours, together with the
textual content messages and cellphone calls with a sexual content material. The High Court
famous that the employer had not initiated any measures to stop
sexual harassment corresponding to implementation of a harassment coverage.
Both the district courtroom and the High Court discovered that the worker
had knowledgeable the employer concerning the sexual harassment earlier than the
window cleaner’s dismissal and that the employer had nonetheless
didn’t take motion despite this data.

Accordingly, the worker was awarded compensation of DKK
40,000. The district courtroom didn’t discover it had been proven that the
dismissal was a results of the sexual harassment criticism and,
consequently, in violation of the Equal Treatment Act, however dominated
that the dismissal was unfair.

In the attraction proceedings, the High Court took under consideration that
the employer, in any occasion, discovered concerning the full extent of the
sexual harassment earlier than the worker was dismissed and that her
clarification concerning the grounds for the dismissal had been credible. The
employer had not disproven breach of the precept of equal
remedy, and the worker was awarded a compensation
similar to 9 months’ wage.

Norrbom Vinding notes

The High Court choice is one in all few rulings in Danish case regulation
that offers with discrimination on grounds of intercourse in relation to
sexual harassment and it’s virtually distinctive in the best way it covers
victimisation.

In this case, the courts hooked up significance to the truth that
the employer had not taken any preventive measures, corresponding to
establishing tips for stopping sexual harassment, and took
this into consideration of their evaluation of legal responsibility. This
confirms the employer’s responsibility to take preventive measures and
the importance of those measures in potential discrimination
claims.

The content material of this text is meant to offer a normal
information to the subject material. Specialist recommendation needs to be sought
about your particular circumstances.

I’ve tried to provide every kind of reports to all of you latest news today 2022 by means of this web site and you’ll like all this information very a lot as a result of all of the information we at all times give on this information is at all times there. It is on trending matter and regardless of the newest information was

it was at all times our effort to achieve you that you just preserve getting the most recent information and also you at all times preserve getting the data of reports by means of us free of charge and likewise let you know individuals. Give that no matter data associated to different varieties of information can be

made out there to all of you so that you’re at all times related with the information, keep forward within the matter and preserve getting today news all varieties of information free of charge until right now in an effort to get the information by getting it. Always take two steps ahead