Judgment approved by the court for handing down Mr J Logo v Payone Gmbh and others that, essentially, the treatment is because of the protected characteristic. At paragraph 18 the Employment Tribunal stated in terms that a mental element is required in a claim of harassment as much as in a claim of direct discrimination. The Employment Tribunal made a similar point at paragraph 107. The Employment Tribunal erred in law in that analysis. There is no requirement for a mental element equivalent to that in a claim of direct discrimination for conduct to be related to a protected characteristic. Treatment may be related to a protected characteristic where it is “because of” the protected characteristic, but that is not the only way conduct can be related to a protected characteristic, and there may be circumstances in which harassment occurs where the protected characteristic did not motivate the harasser. 25. Take, for example, a person who unknowingly uses a word that is offensive to people who have a relevant protected characteristic because it is historically linked to oppression of people who have the protected characteristic. The fact that the person, when using the word, did not know that it had such a meaning or connotation, would not prevent the word used being related to the protected characteristic. That does not necessarily mean the person who used the word would be liable for harassment, because it would still be necessary to consider whether the conduct violated the complainant’s dignity. If the use of the word had that effect but not that purpose, the Employment Tribunal would go on to consider the factors in sub-paragraph (4) of section 26 EQA. That said, there could be circumstances in which, even though a word was used without knowledge of the offensive connotations, having considered the factors in sub-paragraph (4), the perception of the recipient, other circumstances and whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect, the use of the word would nonetheless amount to harassment under section 26 EQA. [emphasis added] “a relevant protected characteristic” 17. The equivalent provisions in some of the predecessor legislation to the EQA required that the unwanted conduct be related to a protected characteristic of B, the person asserting harassment. Section 4A Sex Discrimination Act 1975 referred to a person subjecting a woman to harassment if “on the ground of her sex, he engages in unwanted conduct that has the purpose or effect” of violating dignity etc. Such a connection to a relevant protected characteristic of B is not required on the wording of section 26 EQA. 18. Section 14 Equality Act 2006 (“EQA 2006”) permits the ECHR to issue a code of practice in connection with any matter addressed by the EQA. Section 15 EQA 2006 provides that a code so issued “shall be taken into account by a court or tribunal in any case in which it appears to the court or tribunal to be relevant”. Paragraph 7.10(b) of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (“EHRC”) Employment Code of Practice includes the following: Protection is provided because the conduct is dictated by a relevant protected characteristic, whether or not the worker has that characteristic themselves. © EAT 2025 Page 7 [2025] EAT 95