And speaking of split opinions brings me to the case of Carozzi v University of Hertfordshire and another 2024, in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered whether certain comments about an employee’s accent amounted to harassment relating to the protected characteristic of race.

Miss Carozzi, a Brazilian national of Jewish ethnic origin, was employed by the University of Hertfordshire as a Marketing, Engagement, and Partnerships Manager, but resigned from her position before completing her probationary period, which had been extended twice.

At a five-month review in which Miss Carozzi’s performance was discussed, her line manager stated that she had a “very strong” Brazilian accent, and that it can be difficult for her to be understood. Miss Carozzi’s line manager also added that her accent was an issue as her role was “one of communication”.

Miss Carozzi also stated that during her employment, an HR Business Partner at the University had declined to provide her with notes from an informal meeting, citing the concern that they could be used against the University in tribunal proceedings for race discrimination.

Following Miss Carozzi’s resignation, she brought claims of harassment related to the protected characteristic of race and victimisation related to the refusal of sharing notes from a meeting.

The Employment Tribunal dismissed Miss Carozzi’s harassment claim and found that the comments made by her line manager about her accent were not racially motivated, but were instead related to her communication skills. Additionally, the ET dismissed Miss Carozzi’s victimisation claim on the basis that any other employee who had indicated an intention to make a similar claim would have been treated in the same way by the University.

Miss Carozzi successfully appealed the decision to the EAT. The EAT held that it was incorrect for the ET to require that comments about an accent must be racially motivated to qualify as harassment, and clarified that harassment can occur even if the harasser is not motivated by a protected characteristic. The EAT ruled that an individual’s accent may be a key part of their national or ethnic identity, and consequently, comments about an individual’s accent can be "related to" a protected characteristic and may constitute harassment if they have the purpose or effect of violating someone’s dignity and are unwanted, or create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.

Additionally, the EAT held that the ET misapplied the test for detrimental treatment and should have considered whether the HR Business Partner’s decision to not provide the meeting notes was influenced by the fact that a complaint of discrimination had or might be made by Miss Carozzi, and not whether another employee making a similar complaint would have been treated comparatively. Past case law states that an employer taking reasonable steps to maintain its position in discrimination proceedings would not be detrimental treatment of the employee. However, the EAT stated that the ET did not take into account whether it was likely that tribunal proceedings would actually occur in this case or not.

Subsequently, the EAT upheld Miss Carozzi’s appeal and ordered that the claims of harassment and victimisation should be reheard by the ET to determine whether the University’s response and conduct did in fact amount to harassment and victimisation.

This case highlights the need to carefully evaluate the wider implications of comments or actions that may be linked to protected characteristics, even if the intentions behind them may not be discriminatory. Employers need to ensure that they are vigilant that comments are not made about an employee’s accent, as it can constitute harassment if the accent is integral to the employee's national or ethnic identity. This case also serves as a reminder for employers to be cautious when addressing performance issues that may relate to a protected characteristic.