Judgment approved by the court for handing down Mr J Logo v Payone Gmbh and others HIS HONOUR JUDGE JAMES TAYLER: Introduction 1. This appeal raises questions about the terms “related to” and “effect” in a complaint of harassment under s 26 Equality Act 2010 (“EQA”) and whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law in finding that two substantiated acts of harassment were out of time. 2. I shall refer to the parties as the claimant, the respondent (used to refer to the first respondent) and Mr Schrader (the second respondent). 3. This appeal is against a judgment of the Employment Tribunal after a hearing on 23 to 27, 30 & 31 January and 1 & 3 February 2023; 24 April 2023 (submissions) and 25 & 26 April (discussion in chambers). The judgment and reasons were sent to the parties on 15 September 2023. 4. The claimant brought numerous complaints the substantial majority of which were dismissed. This appeal concerns three complaints of harassment. The Employment Tribunal held that one complaint was not established and that two substantiated acts of harassment were out of time. Factual Background 5. The respondent is a European business that facilitates online payment and mobile points of sale. The claimant commenced employment with the respondent on 16 November 2016 as a New Accounts Manager UK for Medium and Large Accounts. The respondent had a small presence in the UK. 6. The claimant describes himself as Black British. 7. The claimant presented his claim to the Employment Tribunal on 16 March 2021. The Law Harassment 8. Section 40 of the EQA renders harassment of employees unlawful: 40 Employees and applicants: harassment (1) An employer (A) must not, in relation to employment by A, harass a person (B)— © EAT 2025 Page 3 [2025] EAT 95