English v Thomas Sanderson Blinds Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 1421
What Happened?
Stephen English worked for Thomas Sanderson Blinds from 1996 until August 2005. Throughout that time, four colleagues subjected him to persistent sexual innuendo and homophobic taunts, calling him names such as “faggot” and making lurid comments in the company’s house magazine.
Stephen was not gay. His colleagues knew he was not gay. He was, in his own words, a happily married man with three teenage children, and he accepted that the perpetrators knew that perfectly well. The purported basis for the homophobic mockery, as stated by the four colleagues, was that had attended a boarding school and lived in Brighton.
The “banter”, he acknowledged, was no more than a vehicle to tease him.
In November 2005, Stephen brought a claim to the Employment Tribunal under Regulation 5 of the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003, alleging that the conduct had created a hostile and degrading working environment for him. This 2003 Act was later consolidated into and replaced by the Equality Act 2010.
The Legal Journey
The Employment Tribunal dismissed the claim in February 2007. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld that dismissal in February 2008. Both concluded that because Stephen was not homosexual and was not perceived or assumed to be homosexual, and because he accepted that his tormentors were aware of that, the conduct could not amount to harassment “on grounds of sexual orientation” under Regulation 5. Stephen appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal disagreed and allowed his appeal by a majority of two to one. The point that mattered was straightforward. He had been repeatedly taunted with homophobic abuse as if he was gay, that abuse was a “calculated insult to his dignity”, and it created a degrading and hostile working environment for him.
The fact that he actually was not gay made no difference, and neither did the fact that his colleagues knew he was not. The conduct was still on grounds of sexual orientation.
The judges did not all agree
The Court of Appeal was split two to one. Lord Justice Sedley, in the majority, held that Mr English’s actual sexuality was beside the point: the insult to his dignity was enough, and the fact he was not gay had as much to do with sexual orientation as if he had been.
Lord Justice Lawrence Collins agreed, finding that repeated homophobic abuse was on grounds of sexual orientation regardless of the claimant’s real orientation or how his colleagues perceived it. Once that was established, it was irrelevant whether he was gay or not, and no tribunal needed to ask whether the abusers genuinely believed he was.
Lord Justice Laws dissented, taking the view that the homophobic abuse was simply the vehicle for the teasing rather than its reason, and so fell outside the Regulations.iHe considered that if the Regulations were read more widely, this risked opening “Pandora’s attic of unpredictable prohibitions”.
Why This Case Matters
This was a preliminary issue on jurisdiction, not a full merits hearing, and so the case was remitted back to the Employment Tribunal for a determination on liability. The significance lies in the legal framework it established and the robust principles it generated.
The court’s analysis of sexual orientation related harassment remains highly instructive for how tribunals approach these issues today under the Equality Act 2010.
Key Takeaways for Employers
The “just banter” defence has limits. The case makes clear that the nature of the conduct, not just the intent behind it, is relevant. Homophobic language in the workplace carries legal risk regardless of context.
Review your policies. Harassment frameworks that focus narrowly on whether an individual holds a protected characteristic does not reflect the full scope of the law. Someone can be harassed by conduct related to a protected characteristic, even if they do not themselves possess that protected characteristic. Legal protection is a broader question than many policies currently capture.
Ready to Get This Right?
Workplace harassment claims are rarely straightforward. Take a look at one of our latest blogs that shows when the balance isn’t quite right here! , to show how cases such as these can have detrimental effects on your workplace.
Whether you’re an employer wanting to tighten up your policies, a manager looking for practical training, or an individual trying to understand your rights, getting the right advice early can make all the difference.
At Thrive Law, we work with businesses and individuals across the employment law spectrum. From policy reviews and manager training to handling live complaints and tribunal claims, we are here to help you navigate it with confidence. Training take a look at some of the opportunities we offer embedded into our training sessions.
Get in touch at hello@thrivelaw.co.uk or book a call with the team and let’s talk about what you need.
Case Reference
English v Thomas Sanderson Blinds Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 1421
