Judgment approved by the court for handing down Mr J Logo v Payone Gmbh and others established 10.6. if the conduct does not have the “purpose” of “violating B’s dignity” in deciding whether it has that “effect”, the Employment Tribunal must take account of the “perception of B”, the “other circumstances of the case”, and “whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect” 11. A number of the components relevant to this appeal merit further analysis. “conduct” 12. It is the conduct of A that must be related to the relevant protected characteristic: Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust v Allen [2024] EAT 40: 9. It is important to note that it is the “conduct” that must be “related to” the protected characteristic. Thus, if it is asserted that a failure properly to investigate a grievance alleging discrimination constitutes harassment it is not sufficient that the grievance was related to the protected characteristic, the failure properly to investigate the grievance, which constitutes the conduct, must be related to the protected characteristic. “related to” 13. In Bakkali v Greater Manchester (South) t/a Stage Coach Manchester [2018] I.C.R. 1481 Slade J noted the change in wording from predecessor legislation that had required that the treatment be on grounds of race: 31. In my judgment the change in the wording of the statutory prohibition of harassment from unwanted conduct “on grounds of race” in section 3A of the Race Relations Act 1976 (as inserted by regulation 5 of the Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/1626)) to “unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic” affects the test to be applied. Paragraph 7.9 of the Code of Practice on the Equality Act 2010 encapsulates the change. Conduct can be “related to” a relevant characteristic even if it is not “because of” that characteristic. It is difficult to think of circumstances in which unwanted conduct on grounds of or because of a relevant protected characteristic would not be related to that protected characteristic of a claimant. However, “related to” such a characteristic includes a wider category of conduct. A decision on whether conduct is related to such a characteristic requires a broader inquiry. In my judgment the change in the statutory ingredients of harassment requires a more intense focus on the context of the offending words or behaviour. As Mr Ciumei submitted, “the mental processes” of the alleged harasser will be relevant to the question of whether the conduct complained of was related to a protected characteristic of the claimant. It was said that without such evidence the tribunal should have found the complaint of harassment established. However such evidence from the alleged perpetrator is not essential to the determination of the issue. A © EAT 2025 Page 5 [2025] EAT 95