Judgment approved by the court for handing down Mr J Logo v Payone Gmbh and others tribunal will determine the complaint on the material before it including evidence of the context in which the conduct complained of took place. 14. The term related to has been discussed in a number of recent authorities. In Tees Esk Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust v Aslam & Anor [2020] IRLR 495 HHJ Auerbach held: 25. Nevertheless, there must be still, in any given case, be some feature or features of the factual matrix identified by the Tribunal, which properly leads it to the conclusion that the conduct in question is related to the particular characteristic in question, and in the manner alleged by the claim. In every case where it finds that this component of the definition is satisfied, the Tribunal therefore needs to articulate, distinctly and with sufficient clarity, what feature or features of the evidence or facts found, have led it to the conclusion that the conduct is related to the characteristic, as alleged. Section 26 does not bite on conduct which, though it may be unwanted and have the proscribed purpose or effect, is not properly found for some identifiable reason also to have been related to the characteristic relied upon, as alleged, no matter how offensive or otherwise inappropriate the Tribunal may consider it to be. [emphasis added] 15. In Blanc de Provence Ltd v Ha [2023] EAT 160, [2024] I.R.L.R. 184 I noted: 31. It is clear that the test of whether conduct is ‘related to [sex]’ is different to that of whether it is ‘because of [sex]’ as is required to make out a claim of direct sex discrimination. The term ‘related to [sex]’ is wider and more flexible than ‘because of [sex]’. Conduct could be found to be ‘related to [sex]’ where it was done ‘because of [sex]’, but that is not a requirement. So, for example, if A subjects B to unwanted conduct with the purpose of ‘creating an intimidating environment for B’ in circumstances in which it is established that A would not have subjected a man to the same conduct, that would establish that the conduct was ‘related to [sex]’. But there are many other ways in which conduct could be ‘related to [sex]’ such as where there is conduct that is inherently sexist such as telling sexist jokes. [emphasis added] 16. In Carozzi v University of Hertfordshire [2024] EAT 169, [2025] I.R.L.R. 179 I stated: 17. I consider that the term “related to” is designed to have a relatively broad meaning. The harassment provisions are designed to be pragmatic, balancing the interests of employees against those of their employer and colleagues who may be accused of harassment. That balance is not achieved by applying a limited meaning to the words “conduct related to a protected characteristic”. The limitations are that the conduct must be unwanted and it must have the purpose or effect of violating dignity. Where the conduct has that effect, but not that purpose, the Employment Tribunal will go on to consider the perception of B, the other circumstances and whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect. Employers and employees can be expected to take greater care in how they speak and behave at work than they might in their social life. While it is in no-one’s interest that colleagues should constantly be walking on egg-shells, it is also important that proper protection is provided against violation of dignity at work. … 24. I consider that the Employment Tribunal erred in law in its approach to the concept of treatment related to a protected characteristic. On a fair reading of the judgment, the Employment Tribunal required that there must be a mental element so © EAT 2025 Page 6 [2025] EAT 95