Case 2204248/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Owen (CAB representative) v Mr Barca (Solicitor) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2204248/2019
- Decision date
- 23 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Glennie
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms J Griffiths, Mr R Miller
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Owen (CAB representative)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Carrasco was acting on behalf of Escape Campus Limited in a supervisory or management role, and that he and the Claimant could communicate to a reasonable level in Spanish. It accepted that, on more than one occasion, Mr Carrasco and Mr Misceo expressed negative views about the Claimant hiring visibly Muslim teachers, leaving the Claimant with the clear impression that such staff were unwelcome at the school.
The tribunal did not accept several of the Claimant's specific allegations. It was not satisfied that the alleged instructions to dismiss Ms Osman or Ms Hassan, the alleged comment about alcohol at the limoncello incident, or several of the more detailed allegations about headwear and dismissal were proved. On the dismissal issues, it found that the reasons for dismissal were the Claimant's attendance and conduct around 1 and 6 July 2019, together with dissatisfaction over his handling of other staff matters, rather than his religion or his alleged refusal to dismiss or avoid recruiting Muslim teachers.
On liability, the tribunal held that the comments about not hiring Muslim teachers, or questioning why the Claimant was doing so, amounted to harassment related to religion and to an instruction or inducement contrary to section 111 of the Equality Act 2010. The direct discrimination and victimisation complaints were dismissed. The tribunal awarded £5,000 for injury to feelings for the successful complaints, added £727.50 interest calculated from 15 June 2019 to 9 April 2021, and held the respondents jointly and severally liable for the total of £5,727.50.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Religion or belief discrimination | The tribunal found that dismissal was not because the Claimant was Muslim. It accepted that Mr Misceo held an adverse view of visibly Muslim teachers from their dress, but found that this was not a reason for dismissal. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal found that the Claimant was not dismissed because he refused to dismiss, or refused not to recruit, teachers who were Muslim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal upheld the complaint so far as it related to comments by Mr Carrasco and Mr Misceo that the Claimant should not hire visibly Muslim teachers, or questioning why he was doing so. It found that these comments were unwanted, related to religion, and had the effect of creating an offensive environment. Specific allegations about headwear, alcohol, and telling him to dismiss Ms Osman or Ms Hassan were not made out. | Upheld | Religion or belief | — |
| Other | This was the section 111 Equality Act complaint. The tribunal found that the comments that the Claimant should not hire Muslim teachers, and questioning why he was doing so, amounted to an attempt to persuade him to discriminate against Muslims. Other section 111 allegations were not made out. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,728
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.111 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Igen v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
- Vento bands
- Employment Tribunals (Interest on awards in discrimination cases) Regulations 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.