[ad_1]
One year after Harvey Weinstein's revelation of silencing his victims by negotiating non-disclosure agreements, reliance on prohibitive contracts to deal with harassment complaints in the workplace has been relegated to the background.
Philip Green, the billionaire retailer whose brands include Topshop, was unmasked on Thursday. He used the courts to prevent a newspaper from reporting allegations of sexual harassment and racial abuse by some of its employees.
He was appointed to the House of Lords by Peter Hain, the former Labor government minister, as an anonymous businessman who was the subject of an article. appeared in the Daily Telegraph this week.
In the judgment of the Court of Appeal granting an interim injunction, the executive – who is now Sir Sir – was reportedly the subject of complaints by five people, all of whom were "substantial payments".
Three did so through the company's internal grievance procedure, and two of these employees, when their grievances were dismissed, seized the labor tribunal separately. The five cases were closed after the conclusion of settlement agreements, says the decision of the Court of Appeal.
In a statement, Sir Philip said, "I do not comment on anything that happened in court or that was told in Parliament today. To the extent that it is suggested that I have been guilty of illegal sexual or racist behavior, I categorically and totally deny these allegations. "
In July 2018, the Telegraph contacted Sir Philip's lawyers for comments on the story he planned to publish. He and his companies immediately sued the London High Court to prevent the publication of the information on the grounds that it had been obtained by the Telegraph. in breach of trust.
At an early stage, a judge asked the five people who lodged a complaint if they were happy that information about their cases would be published, even if they were not named.
One person agreed but two said they support Sir Philip's request for an injunction, which was first heard in the High Court in July.
The hearing was held in camera to keep the identity of Sir Philip secret and Judge Haddon Cave refused to grant an injunction. Sir Philip is therefore addressed to the Court of Appeals, which this week issued an interim injunction pending the holding of a full trial at the beginning of the year. next year.
The interim injunction only protected the confidentiality of the information for a certain period of time, until the end of the trial, but prevented the publication of the Telegraph.
The three judges of the Court of Appeals said Tuesday that they had granted the interim injunction at this stage, as Sir Philip had a fair chance to undo the Telegraph's arguments that this publication was in the public interest.
"It is not necessary for us to indicate the precise degree of probability of the applicant's success," said the three judges.
Sir Terence Etherton, of the Master of the Rolls, also stated that the circumstances of the case "give rise to important and difficult political considerations".
advisable
The judges also indicated that they also had to determine whether Sir Philip could establish at a trial that the information obtained by the Telegraph had been obtained in breach of the duty of confidentiality, including in violation of the non-disclosure agreements. -disclosure.
They also noted that "asylum seekers deny the most serious allegations of specific and particular incidents".
But the intervention of Lord Hain, invoking the parliamentary privilege of naming Sir Philip, broke the injunction. Sir Philip, who could not be commented, now joins a growing list of powerful men accused of abusing their positions at the time of #MeToo.
Zelda Perkins, former Weinstein's assistant, praised Lord Hain's intervention, saying the Green case was "a perfect example of why the DNAs are so appalling." Mrs. Perkins broke her own NDA with the disgraced mogul during an interview with FT last year to reveal how he would have allegedly harassed her, as well as her colleague.
"NDAs should not be used in cases like this where there are allegations of workplace harassment," she told the FT. "They should only be used for commercial law purposes. . . but there is no other place for them. Because of their existence at any level, they provide a form of exit for bad behavior. "
Labor disputes should instead go to the courts, she added. "Culture will change if there is no option like an NDA. It is a human right to be safe at your workplace and if NDAs are used to hide information that would otherwise be in the public interest, then it is wrong. "
advisable
Ms. Perkins appeared before a parliamentary committee this year to argue for a legislative change regarding the NDAs. The Women and Equality Restricted Commission has completed its hearings and recommended changes to the law, but has yet to receive a response from the government.
Maria Miller, the Conservative member chairing the committee, urged the government to respond. "The government has our report but we have not yet received an answer, so I hope it will speed up the response. . . it becomes really urgent. "
She added that it was "surprising", given Sir Philip's notoriety "and the number of people he employs, that the Court of Appeal ruled that he was not Was not in the public interest of [these allegations] Public ".
Since the demise of his BHS distribution chain in 2016, Sir Philip has been involved in litigation to protect his reputation.
In July, his lawyers asked the High Court to grant a temporary injunction preventing the full accounting regulator from publishing a full report on PwC's audit of BHS.
Sir Philip's lawyers stated that this would allow him to seek judicial review of the FEC's decision and said that the report contained criticisms that he had not been able to answer.
