Harrassment at Gym

pmduk

A company is responsible for any misuse it's staff may use of the the data it may hold on customers.

marywooyeah

Equaliser123 wrote: »

They will say that the employee was on a frolic of his own and does not represent the company in his actions.

Equaliser do you actually know what a "frolic of one's own" is? Its where an employee takes a deviation in route from their actual duties that is so far removed from their job that the employer cannot be vicariously liable for their actions as they are no longer in the course of employment at the time.

Here the trainer was sexually harrasing the OP - depending on how she chooses to pursue it she could either go down the vicarious liability route (civil litigation) which would make the gym liable for the trainer's harrasment, or she could pursue criminal proceedings against him. either way you shouldn't make comments containing legal advice unless you are completely sure that you are correct

Equaliser123

marywooyeah wrote: »

Equaliser do you actually know what a "frolic of one's own" is? Its where an employee takes a deviation in route from their actual duties that is so far removed from their job that the employer cannot be vicariously liable for their actions as they are no longer in the course of employment at the time.

Here the trainer was sexually harrasing the OP - depending on how she chooses to pursue it she could either go down the vicarious liability route (civil litigation) which would make the gym liable for the trainer's harrasment, or she could pursue criminal proceedings against him. either way you shouldn't make comments containing legal advice unless you are completely sure that you are correct

Oh yes. I do. We had to study it at Law Degree level, LPC and have encountered it as a solicitor. So yes, I think I do.

Sexual harrassment is something which, by its very nature, is very individualistic. Do you really think that sexually harrassing was within the remit of the "duties of an employee". Think about it. It was not a) condoned by; b) permitted by; c) authorised by the employer. Neither is there any evidence to point at the fact that the employer sat on its hands and is therefore liable by not taking appropriate action.

With respect, I suspect it is you that needs to be sure of themselves before posting.

Equaliser123

marywooyeah wrote: »

or she could pursue criminal proceedings against him. either way you shouldn't make comments containing legal advice unless you are completely sure that you are correct

I think you also need to understand that, generally, criminal proceedings (criminal law being part of a public law) are not instigated by individuals but by the appropriate authorities.

And before you say "it's possible to start a private prosecution" just think about the hassle, facts, burden of proof and outcome...

marywooyeah

sorry Equaliser I didn't realise you were more qualified than I am (I'm still doing my LLB), I did very well in my tort exams at both ILEX and first year LLB and from what I could remember of a frolic I didnt believe that the instant case here would be classed as a frolic, having seen your explanation I see how you have reached that conclusion. I am aware also of how proceedings, both civil and criminal, are started and didnt not mean for it to appear as if I was saying that the OP could/should personally bring criminal proceedings I meant that they had recourse through both channels. Apologies for any offence caused, having re -read my post it did seem a bit harsh x

mttylad

I certainly hope the OP has cancelled the direct debit.