A married father-of-three who claims he was relentlessly teased about his purported "homosexual tendencies" yesterday launched a test case over the outer reach of anti-discrimination laws.
Stephen English claims he was repeatedly referred to as "faggot" and "Mr Franglais" by colleagues at Thomas Sanderson Blinds after a sales manager discovered that he had attended boarding school and lived in Brighton, which has a large gay community.
The Court of Appeal will now decide whether Mr English, as a heterosexual, is protected by legislation barring discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. The case follows a series of actions over whether the government has properly implemented EU legislation designed to stamp out workplace bias in a myriad of areas, including age, sex, disability, religion and sexual orientation.
Sharon Coleman, a former legal secretary, earlier this year won a landmark ruling extending the scope of disability discrimination legislation to those who are treated less favourably because of their association with a disabled person, such as an elderly relative, even if they are not disabled themselves.
Pressure groups representing older workers are also challenging the government over the legality of allowing businesses to set a "default" retirement age of 65, which they claim violates European legislation outlawing age bias.
At the centre of the English case is whether the former blinds salesman is covered by regulations banning discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation even if his colleagues knew he was not gay.
His lawyers yesterday told the appeals court that while he tried to ignore the "homophobic" innuendo about him, "over the passage of several years he found it increasingly upsetting".
Comments in the company's in-house magazine referring to his attendance at the Brighton Gay Pride parade in "skin-tight Lycra cycling shorts" finally drove him to lodge a complaint.
Mr English has been married for 20 years and has three teenage children.
His case is now being funded by the Equality and Human Rights Commission after having been rejected by both an employment tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
In giving permission to Mr English to take his case to the Court of Appeal, the EAT said the protection afforded to workers under British anti-discrimination regulations was narrower than that provided under EU laws, creating an "unsatisfactory state of affairs".
Thomas Sanderson denies wrongdoing.
