Preventing third-party harassment

Extending the law to protect staff from third-party harassment

Before 30 October employers are only required to protect their staff (i.e. workers, employees, contractors, partners, or a director, but not volunteers) from sexual harassment by a third party (see the last section).

From 30 October 2026, this is extended to taking all reasonable steps to prevent a third party harassing staff because of their protected characteristics (except for pregnancy and maternity or marriage or civil partnership).

This applies to all employees, workers, partners or directors, apprentices, and some self-employed individuals who either can't send someone else to do the work instead or have a limited right to do so.

A third party means a person other than the employer or one of its staff. This can include:

• Customers or clients
• Other people sharing the building where staff work
• People working for suppliers
• Friends and family of staff
• Delegates at a conference
• Freelancers and self-employed contractors
• Members of the public.

Employers can be liable for third-party harassment if both of the following apply:

• The third party harasses the staff member in the course of their employment with the employer.
• The employer fails to take all reasonable steps to prevent the third party from harassing them.

The following concerns have been raised with the government about this:

• For employers operating in sectors where staff frequently interact with third parties, such as hospitality and retail, the duty to take all reasonable steps will be difficult to meet and any finding of third-party harassment will likely mean they have failed to do so (as this defence is, historically, very hard to establish and so rarely used). In response the government has stated that the steps an employer can reasonably take in respect of the actions of third parties in their workplace are clearly more limited than the steps they can take in respect of their staff, and this will be taken into account by employment tribunals when considering the facts of cases.
• Employers have far less control over the actions of third parties than they have over those working for them. The government has said that it does not expect employers to police or control every action of a third party.
• The government has said that courts and tribunals will be required to balance the right of freedom of expression with competing rights.

It's unclear if employment tribunals will take the government's comments into account when deciding a case, and presently there's no direct legal obligation for them to do so.