A tribunal report with the headline “Heathrow worker sues after being told to remove Palestine badge” is likely to make feelings run high on either side of the divide. Let us put the politics aside and look at the facts and the legal principles.
Zara Saiyed, a security officer at LHR, pinned a Palestine flag badge to her staff lanyard a month after the Hamas terror attacks in October 2023. This was less than two months after she started work. A colleague, whom she could not immediately identify, told her to “remove the badge immediately”. She alleged that this was tantamount to finding her hijab offensive. One subsequent allegation, via numerous grievances, was that LHR Airports were “complicit in the killing of Palestinian babies”.
There followed an 11 day tribunal hearing, in which Ms Saiyed claimed direct race and religious discrimination, harassment relating to race and religion, and victimisation.
Direct discrimination calls for determination of whether a claimant had suffered less favourable treatment in comparison to those not sharing the protected characteristic: if so, was it because of the characteristic? The employee faces an initial burden of proof to show potentially less favourable treatment, from which an inference of discrimination can be drawn: if that burden of proof is discharged, it is up to the employer to show that in no sense was the conduct in question based on the protected characteristic.
Harassment, in context, involves unwanted conduct relating to the protected characteristic. A tribunal has to decide whether it had the purpose or effect of violating a claimant’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the claimant.
Victimisation involves protected acts on the claimant’s part: actions on the employer’s part that may have subjected the claimant to detriment; and a link to the protected act.
With the religious characteristic being readily understood, what about race? Ms Saiyed relied upon “associative or perceived race”, comprising her strong identity with Palestinians.
In applying its judgment, the tribunal began with an observation that Ms Saiyed saw everything through the prism of her Palestinian affiliation. It accepted LHR’s submission that she fabricated, exaggerated, and sensationalised.
It went on to note that LHR’s policy on wearing only “Heathrow approved and supported badges” upon uniform and lanyards was clear and stringent, as was its policy towards content on its internal communications channel Buzz. There was a clear difference between hijabs and badges.
The tribunal found that Ms Saiyed had failed to shift the initial burden of proof in relation to the initial response to her grievance and its subsequent rejection; the manner in which her attempts to contribute to an equality network were curtailed via keyword monitoring, and her brief suspension from that network; the removal of her specific posts about Good Friday, Eid, Holocaust Memorial Day, and a link to a Ramadan video; supposed remarks about “wearing that thing on your head” and the safety of her children as opposed to Palestinian children; alleged bullying and pressure at a private meeting; a pay deduction; and a discussion initiated by LHR security intelligence officers.
Had she done so in relation to any of those allegations, the tribunal observed that LHR would have demonstrated in each case, its conduct was not based upon Ms Saiyed’s race – associated, perceived, or otherwise – or her religion. It was evidently unnecessary to explain that a badge showing affiliation to a political cause was not to be equated with an item of religious clothing.
Could LHR have handled matters any differently and spared itself the lengthy hearing? Evidently not. It may or may not have been the case that Ms Saiyed’s prism, of which the tribunal took due note, put this claim beyond commercial settlement or any other factor that might have rendered the trial unnecessary.
Are you facing a tricky race discrimination complaint? Might a fresh pair of eyes help? Get in touch. Contact David Cooper on 07450 350715 or via david@wolverhamptonemploymentlaw.co.uk .
Share this post: