Introduction

Ethical workplace practices serve as the cornerstone of any successful organisation, fostering a culture of respect and professionalism. While a friendly and positive atmosphere is
encouraged, it is imperative to uphold the highest standards of conduct to safeguard employee rights. Labour laws play a crucial role in curbing abuses and providing recourse for
individuals should boundaries become blurred or rights infringed upon.

Sex-based discrimination remains a pervasive issue in many workplaces, despite ongoing efforts such as the #MeToo movement to shed light on these injustices. It is imperative that legal frameworks are robust enough to protect individuals from discrimination and ensure accountability for offenders. As more individuals find the courage to speak out against harassment and discrimination, it underscores the urgent need for comprehensive legal protections to safeguard the rights and dignity of all citizens in the workplace.

The Adam Crouch (Pretty Woman) Case.

The fact follows that Emma Nunn, an employee at G. & M.J. Crouch & Sons Limited, sued Managing Director Adam Crouch for sexual discrimination in the workplace. Adam had invited Emma to a business meeting with a client, citing the client’s preference for “pretty women” . Emma felt her professional abilities were diminished due to her appearance. She resigned and sued, with Tribunal Judge Rachel Broughton ruling that the use of “pretty woman” constituted discrimination, noting it would not have been said to a male colleague . Despite a prior 20-year friendship between the parties, professionalism should have been maintained; Emma cited Adam’s use of terms like “babes,” feeling he addressed her more like a husband than an employer. This case adequately highlights the need for clear boundaries in professional relationships.

1 Ames Jonathan , ‘Calling women pretty at work is sex discrimination, rules judge’ (The times uk, April 29, 2024) accessed 1 May 2024

Reviewing Nigeria’s Legal Approach to Sex-Based Discrimination in the Workplace

It is commendable that the United Kingdom recognizes that sex-based discrimination comes in various forms and is well-equipped to handle these cases. Laws such as The Sexual
Discrimination act 1975, The Equality Act 2010 among other legislation and international agreements ensure the enforcement of a zero tolerance for sex-based discrimination, and this is evidenced by a number of case law asides the Adam crouch case.

Nigerian law frowns against sex-based discrimination, Sections 15(2) and 42 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 prohibits discrimination on grounds of an
3) individual sex , and section 17(3)(c) encourages equal pay for all regardless of sex. Beyond these constitutional provisions that prohibit sex-based discrimination, Nigeria has ratified international conventions such as the United Nations Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and ILO Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention 1958 No.111, which guarantee protection of women rights and freedom from discrimination. Although these provisions exist their adequateness is being questioned, considering the court’s judgement against Adam Crouch as a case study. Although these provisions exist their adequateness is being questioned, considering the court’s judgement against Adam Crouch as a case study.

It is exciting to note that Nigerian Labour law seems to be heading in the right direction as it relates to sex-based discrimination, examining the case of Dapaah & ANOR v. Odey (2018) 4 LPELR-46151(CA) the fact follows that the Respondent was hired by the Appellant to work as a project manager, during the respondent employment the appellant made sexual advances, sexual overtures and advances towards her which were rebuffed. Upon hearing of the impending marriage of the respondent, the appellant terminated the respondent’s employment. The respondent at the trial court claimed among other reliefs a declaration that the victimization, sexual harassment and subsequent termination of the respondent’s employment was malicious, unlawful and unconstitutional. The trial court ruled in favour of the respondent and the appellate court agreed.

2 Ames Jonathan, ‘Calling women pretty at work is sex discrimination, rules judge’ (The times uk, April 29, 2024) accessed 1 May 2024 Ss 15,17,42 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.

The trial court further considered the definition of sexual harassment according to the United Nations Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
Women (CEDAW) which states that:

Sexual harassment includes such unwelcome sexually determined behaviour as physical contact and advances, sexually coloured remarks, showing pornography and sexual
demands, whether by words or actions. Such conduct can be humiliating and may constitute a health and safety problem; it is discriminatory when the woman has reasonable ground to believe that her objection would disadvantage her in connection with her employment, 5) including recruitment or promotion, or when it creates a hostile working environment .

Hence, the convention acknowledges the multifaceted nature of sexual harassment in the workplace. In alignment with the reasoning of the employment tribunal judge in the
Adam Crouch case, the court observed that the statement “the client likes pretty women” implied that Emma Nunn was being invited to the meeting because the client might find
her sexually appealing.

The convention recognizes that sexual harassment in the workplace comes in various forms, and is in line with the rationale of the employment tribunal judge on the Adam Crouch case, the court noted that the statement “the client likes pretty women” connotes the notion that Emma Nunn was being invited for the meeting because the client may
find her sexually attractive.

Moreover, the ILO Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention 1958 No.111 describes discrimination to be:

any distinction, exclusion or preference made on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin, which has the effect ofnullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation;
such other distinction, exclusion or preference which has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation as may be determined by the Member concerned after consultation with representative employers’ and workers’ organisations, where such exist, and with other appropriate bodies .

Examining, the ILO definition which includes preference made based on sex, which affects one’s treatment in the workplace, can be argued to be in line with the court’s ruling in the Adam Crouch case.

Reviewing the Nigerian jurisprudence, The National Industrial Court of Nigeria Rules of Court 2017 makes provisions regarding the sexual harassment action.

The rules of court define sexual harassment as: “an unwanted, unpleasant, offensive or threatening conduct of a sexual nature distinguished from sexual attention that is welcome and mutual. Sexual attention becomes sexual harassment if;

The behaviour is persistent, although a single incident or instance can constitute sexual harassment; and/or
the recipient has made it clear that the behaviour is considered offensive; and/or
the perpetrator should have known that the behaviour is regarded as unacceptable”.

The rules of the court highlight that sexual harassment may be;

Physical conduct of a sexual nature: such as unwanted physical contact, ranging from touching to sexual assault and rape, strip search by or in the presence of the
opposite sex, a gesture that constitutes the alleged sexual harassment.
A verbal form of sexual harassment: such as unwelcome innuendoes, suggestions and hints, sexual advances, comments with sexual overtones, sex-related jokes or insults, or unwelcome graphic comments about a person’s body, unwelcome and inappropriate enquiries about a person’s sex life and unwelcome whistling at a person or group of persons.
A non-verbal form of sexual harassment which includes unwelcome gestures, indecent exposures, and unwelcome displays of sexually explicit pictures and 10 objects.
Quid pro quo harassment where an owner, employer, supervisor, member of management or co-employee undertakes or attempts to influence or influences the process of employment, promotion, training, discipline, dismissal, salary increments or other benefits of an employee or job applicant in exchange for sexual favours.

Considering, the Adam Crouch case the use of the term “pretty woman” and given the context by which it was used could be considered a form of verbal form of sexual harassment.

Further, examining Nigeria case law on the subject matter is the case of Ejieke Maduka v 12 Microsoft &ANOR NCIN/LA492/2012 the fact follows that the applicant an employee of the 1st & 2nd respondent sued for the wrongful termination of her employment for refusing to succumb to the sexual harassment from the 3rd respondent. The applicant stated that the 3rd respondent constantly “tickled” her and female employees and when warned the 3rd respondent stated there was nothing they could do about it. The Applicant relied on the provisions of the Fundamental Right to Human Dignity and Freedom from Discrimination as guaranteed by sections 34 and 42 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Articles 2, 5, 14, 15 and 19 of the African Charter on Human and people’s Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, CAP A9, Laws of the Federation, 2004. The court held that the conduct of the 3rd respondent did indeed amount to sexual harassment and infringed on the applicant’s right to freedom from degrading treatment. The court held that the applicant suffered this degradation because of her sex and that the applicant’s fundamental right against discrimination had been violated. The provisions of the Articles 15 and 19 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement Act) 1983 were examined and relied on by the court, which states;

Article 15- Every individual shall have the right to work under equitable and satisfactory 13 conditions and shall receive equal pay for equal work .
Article 19- All people shall be equal. They shall enjoy the same respect and shall have the same 14
rights. Nothing shall justify the domination of a people by another.

It is relevant to state that the attitude of the court towards the case of Ejieke Maduka v Microsoft &ANOR is indeed commendable and progressive. However, it is important to note that Nigerian labour laws are still trailing behind those of other nations as it relates to addressing workplace discrimination. While Nigeria has legislation such as the HIV/AIDS (Anti-Discrimination) Act of 2014, the Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities Act of 2018, and the Lagos State Special Peoples Law of 2011 to tackle various forms of discrimination, there is a noticeable gap in the legal framework regarding sex-based discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace. In contrast, the United Kingdom’s Equality Act of 2010 offers a comprehensive approach to understanding and addressing different forms of sexbased discrimination. This legislation provides more progressive definitions and perspectives on what constitutes sexual harassment, thereby offering better protection for employees. Nigeria could benefit from similar comprehensive laws to ensure that all individuals are adequately protected in the workplace.

Although the National Industrial Court of Nigeria rules of court have attempted to codify and expand on conducts that amount to sexual harassment and the enforcement of
sexual harassment actions, the rules of court cannot substitute legislation as they do not bear the same strength in law.

Hence, it is recommended that specific laws be made addressing sex-based discrimination, or perhaps the proposed sex harassment bill for tertiary institutions can be expanded to include workplaces.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while Nigeria has taken positive steps in passing laws to combat discrimination, there is still a crucial need for a proactive legislative arm to address the gap in the legal framework regarding sex-based discrimination and workplace harassment. The absence of specific laws dedicated to these issues leaves employees vulnerable and underscores the need for more comprehensive legislation. By establishing robust legal protections, Nigeria can guarantee equal rights and dignity for all individuals in the workplace, promoting a culture of respect and inclusivity.

References

STATUTES
The African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement Act) 1983

The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As amended)

INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS
CEDAW General Recommendation No. 19: Violence against Women Adopted at the Eleventh Session of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women,
in 1992 (Contained in Document A/47/38)
ILO Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention 1958 No.111
United Nations Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
Women (CEDAW)

CASE LAW
Dapaah & ANOR v.Odey (2018) LPELR-46151(Ca)
Ejieke Maduka v Microsoft &ANOR NCIN/LA492/2012

RULES OF COURT
National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017

WEBSITE
Ames Jonathan, ‘Calling women pretty at work is sex discrimination, rules judge’ (The Times UK, April 29, 2024) accessed 1 May 2024