Mr M Soltani v Signature Senior Lifestyle Operations Limited — 2021

The tribunal heard three linked claims arising from events at Coombe Hill Manor in June 2017. The claimant said that, during a smoking-area conversation on 7 June 2017 about the London Bridge attack, Justyna Johnson made offensive remarks about his Muslim faith and practice. The tribunal found the incident had in fact been a heated and difficult discussion about terrorism, Islam, Ramadan, fasting, Allah, and whether Muslim women had to convert or change dress when they married Muslim men. It accepted that some of the claimant's own account exaggerated what was said, but concluded that the core of his complaint was made out.

By majority, the tribunal held that Ms Johnson's conduct amounted to harassment related to religion or belief within s.26 Equality Act 2010. It found the remarks were unwanted, were related to the claimant's religion, and had the effect of violating his dignity. In applying s.26(4), the tribunal accepted that the claimant perceived the comments that way, and that it was reasonable for them to have that effect. Ms Lindsay dissented, describing the incident as a brief, one-off and transitory exchange between colleagues. The tribunal therefore upheld the harassment claim in relation to the 7 June 2017 incident.

The tribunal dismissed the harassment complaint based on Mr Salcim's statement, which had been disclosed later in the proceedings. It found that the claimant could not reasonably interpret the statement as describing him as a terrorist or referring to his children as non-British, and that he was unaware of the statement at the time it was made. On that basis, the statement could not have violated his dignity or created a hostile environment for him, and alternatively it would not have been reasonable for it to have that effect.

The victimisation claim failed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant's complaint on 8 June 2017 was a protected act and rejected the respondent's argument that it had been made in bad faith. However, it found that the alleged detriments were not made out: the claimant had not asked for the grievance hearing to be away from the workplace, the respondent had taken steps to investigate and support a return to work, and there was no actionable detriment arising from Mr Salcim's statement. The unfair dismissal and holiday pay complaints were both withdrawn before determination. The judgment was liability-only and listed a separate remedy hearing for 8 July 2021.