- Context important when deciding whether comment amounts to harassment related to religious belief (Bakkali v Greater Manchester Buses (South))
- What are the practical implications of this judgment?
- What is the relevant background?
- Relevant law
- Factual background
- Decision of the employment tribunal
- What did the EAT decide?
- Case details
Employment analysis: Context is relevant when deciding whether or not a comment amounts to harassment under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010). It is not essential for an alleged perpetrator to attend an employment tribunal hearing to explain why he uttered the offending words, but an adverse inference may be drawn if he does not give evidence. On the facts of this case, an employment tribunal was entitled to find that it was not harassment related to religious belief or race when a colleague asked the claimant (who identifies as being of Moroccan origin and Muslim) ‘Are you still promoting IS/Daesh?’ because, seen in its context, that comment related to, and followed on from, a previous conversation between the claimant and the alleged perpetrator, where the claimant had quoted what could be regarded as positive statements made by a journalist regarding ISIS fighters, according to the EAT.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial