Harassment and victimisation under the Equality Act 2010 are often discussed alongside direct and indirect discrimination, but they address different harms. Harassment concerns unwanted behaviour that undermines dignity or creates a hostile environment. Victimisation concerns being penalised for asserting equality rights or helping someone else do so. The distinction matters because a person can experience both, and proving victimisation does not require proving that the original discrimination complaint succeeded.
How harassment differs from direct and indirect discrimination
Direct discrimination generally involves less favourable treatment because of a protected characteristic. Indirect discrimination concerns a provision, criterion or practice that disadvantages people sharing a protected characteristic without adequate justification. Harassment focuses instead on unwanted conduct and its purpose or effect. Victimisation focuses on detrimental treatment linked to a protected act.
One workplace incident may raise several legal issues. For example, racist insults could be harassment, while denying somebody a promotion because of race could be direct discrimination. Denying that person a promotion because they complained about racist insults could be victimisation. Our explanations of direct and indirect discrimination offer useful context for these overlapping claims.
When does behaviour become harassment under the Equality Act?
Section 26 covers unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic where its purpose or effect is to violate somebody’s dignity or create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. In employment, the relevant characteristics are age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.
Examples include mocking a colleague’s disability, repeatedly circulating racist jokes, or posting offensive comments about a person’s religion in a work chat. Equality Act harassment can involve words, images, gestures or conduct online. A serious single incident may be enough; repetition is not an absolute requirement.
Intent, impact and context
A person does not have to intend harm for their behaviour to qualify. Where the issue is its effect, the law considers the recipient’s perception, the surrounding circumstances and whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect. Calling a remark a joke does not automatically excuse it. Equally, finding something offensive does not by itself establish unlawful harassment in every context.
Sexual harassment and other boundaries
Section 26 also separately prohibits unwanted conduct of a sexual nature that meets the dignity or hostile-environment test. It additionally addresses less favourable treatment following someone’s rejection of, or submission to, sexual harassment or harassment related to sex or gender reassignment.
Marriage and civil partnership, and pregnancy and maternity, are not themselves included in section 26’s list of harassment characteristics, although conduct concerning pregnancy may amount to sex-related harassment or another form of discrimination. Coverage also varies by setting: in services and public functions, for example, the standalone harassment rules do not generally cover religion or belief or sexual orientation, although direct discrimination protections may still apply.
What counts as victimisation?
Under section 27, victimisation occurs when someone suffers a detriment because they performed a protected act, or because another person believes they did or might perform one. A detriment could be exclusion from training, a punitive shift change, unfair criticism or loss of an opportunity. The central question is the connection between the protected act and the adverse treatment.
Protected acts include raising an Equality Act discrimination allegation, bringing legal proceedings, providing evidence or information for proceedings, and doing something else connected with rights under the Act. Supporting a colleague’s discrimination complaint can therefore qualify. Victimisation law does not require the person suffering the detriment to have a protected characteristic themselves.
A complaint can still be protected if its allegations are ultimately unproven. However, deliberately false evidence or allegations made in bad faith do not count as protected acts. Ordinary disagreements or grievances that make no allegation connected with Equality Act rights do not automatically receive victimisation protection.
A practical example: one complaint, two problems
Imagine a supervisor repeatedly jokes about an employee’s accent and ethnic background in team meetings. The employee saves meeting messages and reports race-related harassment to human resources. The jokes stop, but the supervisor then removes the employee from a development course, telling colleagues that people who complain are disloyal.
The original conduct may amount to harassment related to race. The later exclusion may amount to victimisation if it occurred because of the employee’s discrimination complaint. These are separate questions requiring different evidence. A dated record of remarks helps establish the first; emails, course-selection records and comments about the complaint may help establish the second.
Where do these protections apply?
The Equality Act regulates relevant conduct in employment, recruitment, education, housing, services, public functions and certain associations, but the detailed rules and exceptions differ across settings. It applies to England, Scotland and Wales; Northern Ireland has different equality legislation. Not every rude interaction is unlawful. Coverage depends on the relationship, conduct and statutory provisions.
Employers can be responsible for harassment by employees in the course of employment, subject to statutory defences. Since 26 October 2024, employers have also had a proactive duty to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of employees. This is distinct from a worker’s individual harassment claim.
What should someone do if it happens?
Record dates, exact words or actions, witnesses, messages and the practical impact. Keep a separate chronology of any disadvantage following a complaint. If safe, explain the conduct is unwelcome, then use the relevant grievance or complaint procedure. Our guide to raising a workplace discrimination grievance may help. Acas offers workplace guidance; the Equality Advisory and Support Service can advise on discrimination concerns more broadly.
Do not assume an internal grievance pauses a legal deadline. For employment tribunal discrimination claims involving incidents before 1 October 2026, the usual limit was three months less one day. For incidents on or after that date, the usual limit is six months less one day. Acas notification and early conciliation rules can affect the calculation, so check the deadline promptly. Procedures and time limits for non-employment claims differ.
Frequently asked questions
Is harassment the same as bullying?
No. Bullying may be deeply harmful, but Equality Act harassment must satisfy its specific legal tests. Other legal duties or rules may apply to bullying that falls outside them.
Can you claim victimisation if the original complaint fails?
Potentially, yes. Protection does not depend on winning the earlier discrimination allegation. What matters is a qualifying protected act, a detriment and the required causal connection, subject to the bad-faith exception.
Does someone have to ask for offensive comments to stop?
No. Conduct can be unwanted without a prior objection. A clear objection may help demonstrate the situation, but the legal test does not require one.
Can a witness to discrimination be victimised?
Yes. Giving evidence or information connected with an Equality Act complaint may be a protected act. Punishing a witness for doing so can amount to victimisation.
Conclusion
Harassment is about the nature and impact of unwanted conduct; victimisation is about the consequences of exercising equality rights. Recognising both helps people identify when a hostile environment is followed by retaliation, gather relevant evidence and seek advice before legal deadlines expire. The facts and statutory context ultimately determine which protections apply.
