When Harassment Is Proven But Justice Isn’t Served

What Employers Can Learn from Logo v Payone

A recent employment case, Logo v Payone and others, has shed important light on the way tribunals assess racial harassment claims, and the dangers of relying too heavily on procedural technicalities. For employers, it’s a timely reminder that workplace culture, proactive education, and policy implementation are your best safeguards, not just against legal action but against harm to your team.

 

What Happened?

Mr Logo brought several claims of racial harassment against his employer, Payone. These included:

• A colleague attending a work party wearing blackface makeup.
• Another colleague telling Mr Logo they had heard a racially offensive joke involving a black man and an animal.

The tribunal accepted that both events had occurred and that they had a harassing effect on Mr Logo. In other words, the legal definition of harassment was met.

However, and here’s where the case took a troubling turn, the tribunal ruled the claims were “out of time”. Despite the behaviour being recognised as harassment, the tribunal declined to extend the time limit for bringing the claims. Their reasoning? That the delay in bringing the case had impacted the memories of those accused.

 

What the Employment Appeal Tribunal Said

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) overturned this reasoning. It pointed out that the original tribunal had already accepted the incidents occurred and that they had a negative impact on Mr Logo. The tribunal’s concern about the perpetrators’ memories was, therefore, irrelevant. The law does not require intention to harass, it focuses on the effect on the individual. If the tribunal accepted the behaviour as harassment, the delay in the respondents’ recollections should not have blocked Mr Logo’s access to a remedy.

 

A Third Incident: The WhatsApp Video

Mr Logo also raised a further claim, that a video advert for a beer brand (‘Pure Blonde’) had been shared in a team WhatsApp group in which he was the only black member. The video showed a world full of white, blonde people and presented it as a ‘pure’ utopia. The original tribunal dismissed this as unrelated to race.

Again, the EAT disagreed.

The appeal tribunal found that:

• The video clearly depicted an idealised world of white, blonde individuals, a setting that very much “relates to” race.
• The tribunal had failed to properly consider how Mr Logo perceived the incident, focusing instead on the intentions of the person who posted the video.
• It had also overlooked the wider context: Mr Logo was the only black member of the group, and the video was posted without comment.

 

Why This Matters for Employers

This case highlights a crucial point, that harassment is judged by its effect on the person who experiences it, not the intention behind it.

It also underscores how vital it is for employers to:

• Take all harassment complaints seriously, no matter how much time has passed.
• Train managers and staff regularly on equality, diversity and inclusion, not just for compliance, but to help shape a culture where discriminatory behaviour is recognised and challenged.
• Understand that subtle actions, like a ‘joke’ or an ill-judged video, can carry significant weight depending on context.

 

Our Advice

Make sure your team feels safe and confident in raising concerns. Review your policies around harassment and discrimination and keep lines of communication open. Remember: people rarely make complaints lightly. The real risk lies in brushing issues under the carpet, not in addressing them head-on.

Do you need a hand reviewing your harassment or equality policies? Or want support implementing inclusive workplace training? We are here to help.

At enlightenHR, we specialise in helping SMEs build healthy, legally sound cultures, where people feel respected, safe, and supported.