Miss Naziya Ayub v Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust — 2026

Miss Naziya Ayub, a British Pakistani Muslim Healthcare Assistant employed at Band 3, brought claims of direct race discrimination, indirect religious discrimination, harassment related to religion, harassment related to race, and constructive unfair dismissal against Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust. All claims were dismissed.

The religious-harassment allegation concerned a recorded conversation between Karen Nelson and Kainat Yaseen. The Tribunal found that Ms Nelson did not make the alleged comment, "Why can't she wear pants or leggings"; the closest recorded phrase was "just wear leggings or trousers or whatever." Although the actual discussion was unwanted conduct related to religion, it had neither the purpose nor the effect required by section 26 Equality Act 2010. The participants did not know they were being recorded, the discussion concerned compliance with the workwear policy, and the Tribunal found that the isolated and conversational comments could not reasonably be regarded as violating the claimant's dignity or creating the prescribed adverse environment.

The Tribunal found that Ms Nelson did make the comment, "But you're all bloody British anyway aren't you, do you know what I mean?" and that it was related to race. In context, however, it was intended to express that the Healthcare Assistants were all British irrespective of colour or ethnic origin, during a discussion in which hiring only White, British or English employees was described as racist. The Tribunal found that neither the comment nor the use of "bloody" had the required purpose or effect, and dismissed the race-harassment complaint.

For direct race discrimination, the Tribunal accepted that the claimant was paid less than the named White British Band 4 employees. It found material differences between their circumstances: they had applied for and were employed under Band 4 contracts carrying additional responsibilities, whereas the claimant had applied for and held a Band 3 role. The Band 3 group included employees of different ethnicities, including White British employees. The Tribunal found no evidence linking pay to race and concluded that the claimant's pay resulted from the banding, contractual terms and responsibilities of her role.

For indirect religious discrimination, the Tribunal found that requiring Healthcare Assistants to comply with the workwear policy was a provision, criterion or practice that placed the claimant, and would place Muslim employees sharing her interpretation of modest dress, at a particular disadvantage. It nevertheless found the requirement justified as a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims, particularly health and safety and infection control. The Tribunal found that the fabric of the jilbab materially increased risks of slipping, tripping, falling or entanglement in the homes and schools where the claimant worked. The respondent had sought specialist advice and offered alternatives including different uniform combinations, sizes and a possible bespoke solution, but the claimant maintained that only the jilbab met her religious requirements.