What happened?
Staff have described a culture of fear. Al Fayed was heavily protected and the power imbalance between him and female shop floor staff was colossal. Even the Harrods’ HR Manager claimed that she was sexually assaulted, so for the staff making these allegations, there was really nowhere safe to turn to for help.
It is alleged that security staff who could have intervened failed to do so. Not only did they turn a blind eye, but they actively covered up allegations in a bid to protect Al Fayed who has now been described as a ‘predator’ and ‘monster’.
Allegations made against Al Fayed go back as far as the late 1980s and numerous allegations of sexual harassment have been reported in the press since 1995. However, Al Fayed never faced justice and died last year.
Why was this allowed to happen?
If you set aside the fact that Al Fayed was an incredibly powerful man, employment laws operated differently in the 1980s and 1990s. The first case of a woman winning her claim for sexual harassment in the workplace was in 1983. That case was pursued under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and at the time this was hailed as a “landmark” case. The law has been clear since the 1980s; it is not acceptable to harass women in the workplace.
Could this happen in 2024?
Employment legislation which protects employees has moved on significantly. From 26th October 2024, The Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 places a legal obligation on employers to take ‘reasonable steps’ to prevent their employees from experiencing sexual harassment.
The scale of sexual harassment that allegedly took place at the hands of Al Fayed should never be allowed to happen again. The legal definition of sexual harassment in the workplace was clarified under the Equality Act 2010; ironically, the year in which Al Fayed gave up ownership of Harrods.
However, the new legislation places a new duty on employers to take a proactive approach to preventing sexual harassment.
What is sexual harassment?
Sexual harassment is unwanted conduct of a sexual nature which has the purpose or effect of:
- violating someone’s dignity
- creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them
Unwanted conduct of a sexual nature includes a wide range of behaviours. This can include sexual comments or jokes, sexist jokes, displaying or sharing sexually graphic pictures, suggestive looks or leering, propositions and sexual advances, intrusive questions about a person’s sex life or discussing your own sex life, sexual posts or contact on social media, spreading rumours about a person’s sexuality, unwelcome touching, hugging, massaging or kissing.
As well as this, criminal behaviour such as sexual assault, stalking, and/or indecent exposure can all be classed as sexual harassment if they take place in the course of employment.
Many staff at Harrods report that Al Fayed would kiss, hug and grope them in the workplace. This is clearly conduct which would amount to sexual harassment, not to mention the fact that he is likely to have committed a crime. More serious allegations of sexual assault and rape have also gone unpunished.
Reasonable employers will already have policies in place to deal with sexual harassment. However, under the new legislation, employers must take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace and – in the event of a claim -be able to show that they have done so.
The measures taken by the employer should not simply be a tick box exercise.
Proactive approach
Employers should now consider the following:
Workplace culture
This can vary depending on the nature of the business. If a toxic workplace culture exists, then the employer must take steps to eradicate any behaviour which tolerates sexual harassment.
It is clear that under Al Fayed’s ownership, Harrods had an extremely toxic culture. Senior staff working under Al Fayed have been accused of contributing by turning a blind eye to his conduct, or in some cases covering it up.
Policies and training
Robust policies which outline a zero-tolerance approach to sexual harassment should be implemented. The policy should cover what counts as sexual harassment, how to make a complaint and how it will be dealt with, what amounts to a criminal matter and when the police will be contacted, and when disciplinary action will be taken.
Training is also crucial for all staff, and not just for management. It should cover what counts as sexual harassment, what the obligation is for staff in terms of their own conduct, and how to prevent harassment. Training and policies should also cover social media communications and WhatsApp communications. How to report sexual harassment should also be included.
Safe reporting
Staff should be made aware of how to report sexual harassment in line with the employer’s policy. Employees should also be encouraged to speak out about harassment.
It was impossible for staff who allege they were sexually harassed at Harrods to speak out. There was no safe way to report this. Staff who did complain report that they were either sacked or intimidated by security staff.
Role of management and senior staff
Management and team leaders should set the tone for conduct in the workplace. After all, no employee is going to feel comfortable reporting sexual harassment to a manager who openly makes inappropriate comments in the workplace.
Sexual harassment claims at an employment tribunal
Under the new law, the employment tribunal can now increase compensation awards for sexual harassment claims by up to 25% if it finds that sexual harassment has taken place, and that the employer failed to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment.
Harrods, which is no longer under the ownership of Al Fayed, is taking the allegations extremely seriously and has set up a compensation scheme for victims of Al Fayed. With upwards of 100 women coming forward with allegations, this will be an extremely costly exercise for Harrods.
As well as a large financial penalty, employers who fail in their obligation to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment risk reputational damage. The decision by the current owners to set up a compensation scheme should go some way towards mitigating the risk of reputational damage.