29th September 2025
Sexual Harassment “Outside” Work: When Can Employers Be Held Liable?
A recent judgment from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in AB v Grafters Group Ltd (t/a CSI Catering Services International) highlights the circumstances in which employers may be responsible for sexual harassment committed by their staff, even when the conduct happens away from the workplace.
Case Background
AB worked for Grafters Group, a hospitality staffing agency, in their Cardiff branch. On 1st November 2021, she believed she was scheduled to work at Hereford Racecourse and went to the company’s office, expecting transport. Instead, a colleague, CD, offered her a lift. During the journey, he informed her that she was not needed that day. Rather than taking her home as she requested, he drove her to a golf course near Pontypridd, where he sexually harassed her.
Following the incident, AB reported the matter to the police, resigned from her role, and brought a harassment claim against her employer.
Equality Act 2010
Section 109 of the Equality Act 2010 establishes that employers can be held vicariously liable (meaning legally responsible) for discrimination, harassment, or victimisation carried out by their employees “in the course of employment.”
Tribunal’s Initial Decision
The Employment Tribunal accepted that harassment had occurred but ruled that the employer was not vicariously liable. It decided CD’s behaviour was not “in the course of employment” since:
- The incident took place outside normal working hours and away from the workplace,
- CD was not scheduled to work that day, and
- The lift was not organised or known to the employer.
- The Tribunal also concluded that CD’s motivation was personal. Therefore, not linked to his job.
The Appeal
AB challenged this decision before the EAT on three grounds:
- The Tribunal overlooked relevant factors, including harassing messages sent by CD while at work and the fact that he had previously given AB work-related lifts.
- It focused on irrelevant considerations, such as CD’s personal motives and the lack of employer approval for the lift.
- It failed to ask whether the incident was sufficiently connected to work to be treated as an “extension of employment,” similar to what happens at workplace social events.
What Counts as “In the Course of Employment”?
The EAT provided guidance on how tribunals should decide whether conduct falls within employment:
- The focus is on the alleged harasser’s connection to work, not the victim’s.
- “Course of employment” should be interpreted in an ordinary, broad sense and in “the sense in which every layman would understand them”.
- Each case turns on its facts, and similar scenarios may have different outcomes.
- Tribunals must consider the overall circumstances, including time, location, and the link to work.
- Employer knowledge or approval of the incident is not necessary for liability, as this may “excessively water down” anti-discrimination protections.
Findings of the EAT
The EAT found that the Tribunal had misapplied the law. While it correctly stated the legal test, it failed to analyse whether CD’s actions were sufficiently connected to his employment.
In particular, the Tribunal should have:
- Considered CD’s earlier workplace messages to AB as part of a chain of events,
- Examined whether AB’s acceptance of the lift was influenced by work-related factors, such as CD previously transporting her to jobs,
- Addressed whether CD exploited AB’s mistaken belief that she was attending work that day.
The EAT stressed that informal situations, such as car journeys or work-related social activities, can fall within the “course of employment” where there is a close link to work.
As these points had not been properly assessed, the appeal succeeded, and the case has been remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration.
Why This Matters for Employers
The ruling is a reminder that employer liability for harassment is not limited to the physical workplace. Liability can arise where:
- Incidents occur during travel related to work,
- Misconduct happens at social or informal events linked to employment.
- The harasser’s motives or whether the employer approved the situation are not decisive. What matters is whether the behaviour is sufficiently connected to employment.
Practical Steps for Employers
To minimise risk, employers should:
- Maintain clear anti-harassment policies that apply to both work and work-related social settings.
- Provide training to reinforce expected standards of behaviour.
- Set expectations around conduct during informal work-related interactions (e.g., lift sharing, WhatsApp groups, or social gatherings).
- Encourage staff to report inappropriate behaviour, and investigate complaints even if they arise outside of normal working hours or workplace premises.
