Can comments about an employee’s accent amount to harassment? 

In this case, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered whether comments about an employee’s accent had the potential to be ‘related to’ race for the purposes of a harassment claim brought under the Equality Act 2010. 

 Miss E Carozzi v (1) University of Hertfordshire (2) Ms A Lucas: [2024] EAT 169 

Facts of the case 

The claimant, C, a woman of Brazilian nationality and of Jewish ethnic origin, was employed by the University of Hertfordshire in the position of Engagement, Marketing and Partnership Manager. The position had a six-month probationary period which was extended on two occasions. C resigned before completing her probationary period and presented a claim to the employment tribunal including complaints of direct discrimination, harassment, victimisation and constructive dismissal.   

The harassment complaint concerned comments that had been made by C’s line manager about her accent. This included comments during a review meeting that C had a “very strong accent”, that it could be difficult for C to be understood and that this was an issue for C in her role which required communication, engagement and partnership.  

In determining C’s harassment complaint, the employment tribunal found that the references made were concerned with C’s intelligibility or comprehensibility when communicating orally and were not motivated by or made because of her race. On that basis the tribunal dismissed the complaint on the ground that the comments were not ‘related to’ race. 

EAT decision 

The EAT upheld C’s appeal, finding that the tribunal had erred in its analysis of the term ‘related to’ in the definition of harassment. 

The EAT considered that the term ‘related to’ in the context of harassment is intended to have a relatively broad meaning and does not necessarily require a mental element in the same way as direct discrimination. The EAT used the example of a person who unknowingly uses a word that is offensive to people with a relevant protected characteristic, due to its historical context, to illustrate the circumstances in which harassment could potentially occur even where the treatment is not motivated by the protected characteristic. 

The EAT held that a person’s accent may be an important part of their national or ethnic identify. Therefore, comments about that person’s accent could be related to their race and, accordingly, criticisms of their accent have the potential to amount to harassment. An employment tribunal would need to consider the specific circumstances of any case to determine whether a comment about a person’s accent was unwanted, related to race, and had the purpose or effect of violating that person’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for that person. 

The claim was remitted for re-hearing by a differently constituted employment tribunal. 

The Birketts view 

To amount to harassment, conduct must be unwanted and ‘related to’ a relevant protected characteristic. This is intended to encompass a wide range of conduct and is not limited to treatment because of, or motivated by, a protected characteristic.  

This case emphasises that employers should treat issues concerning an individual’s accent sensitively and recognise the potential connection between an individual’s accent and their racial identity. That is not to say that any comment about a person’s accent will automatically amount to harassment. However, it does reinforce the need for managers to address any performance or communication issues objectively, against measurable criteria and with supporting evidence where possible. Particular sensitivity is required when making a reference to an individual’s accent or any other aspect of their identity in this context.  

It also serves as a reminder to employers to be aware that certain conduct and language may be perceived as having a connection to a protected characteristic, even where that connection is unintended. This extends to workplace banter or jokes and also to less obvious examples, such as unconscious references to stereotypes or the use of language which may have offensive connotations. 

It is important for employers to regularly review and update their anti-harassment policies and training to ensure all staff are mindful of their use of language and to minimise the risk of unintended harassment. This should also form part of employers’ preparations for the Employment Rights Bill, which is expected to receive Royal Assent in 2025 and currently contains a duty on employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment of their staff by third parties.