Harassment In The Context Of Religion

Ali v Heathrow Express Operating Company Ltd (1) and Redline Assured Security Ltd (2)

Case background

The Claimant, Anis Ali (Mr Ali), worked for Heathrow Express Operating Company Ltd (Heathrow). Redline Assured Security Ltd (Redline) carried out security checks at Heathrow airport and the Heathrow Express stations.

The checks carried out by Redline included creating and leaving suspicious objects to “test” the security officers. In August 2017, a test was carried out which involved a bag containing a box, electric cables and a piece of paper with the wording “Allahu Akbar” written in Arabic. As a result of the test, an email was sent to a group of employees (including Mr Ali) that reported on the results of the test and included images of the items.

Mr Ali (who is Muslim) subsequently brought an Employment Tribunal claim, complaining that Redline’s conduct amounted to either 1) direct discrimination or 2) harassment by reference to his religion, as per the Equality Act 2010. He said that Redline acted as an agent for Heathrow and both parties were therefore liable for their conduct.

The Employment Tribunal, in the first instance, held that neither Redline nor Heathrow’s conduct amounted to direct discrimination or harassment because by using the phrase “Allahu Akbar”, Redline did not have the intention of associating Islam with terrorism. The Employment Tribunal decided that Redline had chosen to use the words as a result of recent incidents whereby the phrase had been used; specifically, the London Bridge, Westminster Bridge, and Manchester Arena Attacks, which all took place that year.

The Claimant appealed against the Employment Tribunal’s decision on the grounds that it was either perverse or insufficiently reasoned.

The arguments

The Claimant stated that stereotyping could amount to religious discrimination. He said that ‘just because the phrase “Allahu Akbar” had been used by extremists in a small number of terrorist attacks did not make it legitimate to use it to reinforce the suspicious nature of a package’.

Redline and Heathrow argued that although it was regrettable that the phrase “Allahu Akbar” had been used in connection with the 2017 terrorist attacks, it was a legitimate reason for the phrase to be used in order to make the package more suspicious. Redline and Heathrow also argued that Mr Ali was not on duty that day and therefore the test could not have been particularly directed at him.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal’s judgment

In reference to the Employment Tribunal’s reasons for its findings being inadequate, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that there was no reason to believe that the Employment Tribunal’s failure to mention Mr Ali’s propositions was because of a failure to consider the propositions or to take an issue with them. The Employment Appeal Tribunal said that the nature of Mr Ali’s propositions meant that the Employment Tribunal did not need to confirm whether they regarded them as controversial or not.

In terms of the relevant law, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that although they appreciated how Mr Ali felt about the treatment of Muslims in society, the role of the Employment Tribunal was to consider whether the conduct of Redline and Heathrow Express amounted to harassment as defined in Section 26 Equality Act 2010. The Employment Appeal Tribunal said that they could only interfere with the Employment Tribunal’s decision if it felt that it had erred in law and that they concluded that the decision was neither legally perverse nor insufficiently reasoned.