Judgment approved by the court for handing down Mr J Logo v Payone Gmbh and others This means that protection against unwanted conduct is provided where the worker does not have the relevant protected characteristic, including where the employer knows that the worker does not have the relevant characteristic. Connection with a protected characteristic may arise in several situations: … • The worker is known not to have the protected characteristic but nevertheless is subjected to harassment related to that characteristic. • The unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic is not directed at the particular worker but at another person or no one in particular. • The unwanted conduct is related to the protected characteristic, but does not take place because of the protected characteristic. [emphasis added] 19. This again emphasises that the protected characteristic need not be that of the person alleging harassment. 20. In Tees Esk HHJ Auerbach stated: 21 Thirdly, although in many cases, the characteristic relied upon will be possessed by the complainant, this is not a necessary ingredient. The conduct must merely be found (properly) to relate to the characteristic itself. The most obvious example would be a case in which explicit language is used, which is intrinsically and overtly related to the characteristic relied upon. [emphasis added] “purpose” 21. A’s purpose must be to violate the dignity of B. It follows that if A is unaware of any possibility that B will know about the conduct it cannot have had the purpose of violating B’s dignity. Where A is reckless as to whether dignity may be violated by their conduct, and B’s dignity is violated, but A did not have the purpose of violating the dignity of B, any complaint by B will come under the “effect” limb. “effect” 22. In deciding whether unwanted conduct has the effect of violating dignity the Employment Tribunal must take into account the perception of B, which is a subjective factor, the other circumstances of the case, which appears to be broadly objective and whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect, which is an objective test. It is an oddity that conduct that in the genuine perception of B violated B’s dignity will be treated as not having that effect if it was not reasonable for the conduct to have that effect. More naturally in such circumstances one might have © EAT 2025 Page 8 [2025] EAT 95