In Ali v Heathrow Express Operating Company Ltd., (EAT, April 7, 2022), the United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld an Employment Tribunal's dismissal of an Equality Act religious harassment complaint brought by a Muslim employee of the Heathrow Express train service. At issue was the conduct of a Heathrow Airport employee who duties involved carrying out security checks. According to the Tribunal:
[T]his involved creating and leaving suspicious objects to test how security officers responded to them. In August 2017 it carried out a test using a bag containing a box, some electric cabling and, visible at the top, a piece of paper with the words “Allahu Akbar” written in Arabic.
The Tribunal below held:
We conclude that in the circumstances that existed at the time it was not reasonable for the claimant to take offence at this incident. He should have understood that in adding this phrase Mr Rutherford’s team were not seeking to associate Islam with terrorism - instead they were seeking to produce a suspicious item based on possible threats to the airport.
In affirming the Employment Tribunal, the appellate court said in part:
It is not said, on appeal, that the tribunal should have concluded that these words had been chosen gratuitously with the deliberate purpose of causing upset....
We understand that a strand of the claimant’s case was that the use of this phrase was particularly insensitive, and offensive to him, not merely because it referenced Islam, but because of the sacred nature and significance of this particular phrase in religious observance. While we do not accept that it was perverse not to regard the conduct of the second respondent as amounting in itself to the stereotyping of Muslims generally as terrorists or terrorist sympathisers, we do understand that he also says that, because such stereotyping is a significant and serious blight on the lives of Muslims, the use of these words in this context was particularly charged for him, more than, say, the use of an animal-rights slogan co-opted by some terrorists would be for a vegan. However, we cannot say that these features point to the conclusion that the tribunal could only properly have found that the claimant’s perception that the conduct had the effects on him of the kind referred to in section 26(1)(b) was a reasonable one.
Law & Religion UK reports on the decision.
