Control Room Operator’s Angry Comment Lands Employer in Legal Hot Water

Angry comments uttered in a moment of workplace stress can very easily amount to harassment and land employers in legal hot water. That was certainly so in the case of a frustrated control room operator’s response to a Muslim worker’s reluctance to cover a shift during the Islamic festival of…

Mar 15, 2021

Pexels shane aldendorff 1135453 819x1024

Angry comments uttered in a moment of workplace stress can very easily amount to harassment and land employers in legal hot water. That was certainly so in the case of a frustrated control room operator’s response to a Muslim worker’s reluctance to cover a shift during the Islamic festival of Eid.

The operator, who worked for a security company, was under strain due to a staff shortage arising from the festival and was anxious to find a guard to cover a day shift. He contacted the worker, who informed him that he could not start work until after 11am because he wanted to go to a mosque to pray.

Frustrated at that response, he retorted, “Do all Muslims have to go to prayers?” The worker was upset by that comment, viewing it as a derogatory statement concerning his faith. Following a testy exchange of texts, the operator apologised, explaining that he was under extreme pressure. The worker raised a formal grievance which was subsequently rejected.

After he launched proceedings against his employer, an Employment Tribunal (ET) found that the operator’s words amounted to harassment related to the worker’s religion, contrary to Section 26 of the Equality Act 2010. The comment had been made in an angry and threatening manner, rather than in a spirit of open-minded enquiry.

The worker described the operator’s words as ‘crossing all the boundaries by hitting at my religion’ and he reasonably viewed them as unacceptable. The comment was particularly unwanted because it was made during Eid and created an intimidating, hostile, humiliating and offensive environment for the worker.

His other complaints against the employer were rejected, either on their merits or because they had been lodged outside statutory time limits. The amount of compensation due to him in respect of the single incident of harassment found proved would be assessed at a further hearing, if not agreed.

Houses in Multiple Occupation – A Cautionary Tale for Errant Landlords

Pressure on the housing market has led to the conversion of many redundant office buildings into flats and the number of such projects is likely to be greatly increased by shifting work patterns brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. A Court of Appeal ruling, however, powerfully signalled that rules in respect of health, safety and living standards at such premises will be rigorously enforced. The case concerned an office block that had been converted into 47 flats. After a housing officer…

Use of Discriminatory Words in the Workplace – Context Always Matters

Employers are entitled to enforce zero-tolerance policies in respect of discriminatory remarks in the workplace. As an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling showed, however, a thorough investigation is always required prior to a dismissal, not least because words that may be utterly unacceptable in one context may not be in another. A sales manager with an otherwise blemish-free disciplinary record was summarily dismissed on grounds of gross misconduct on the basis that he had used the discriminatory…

Discrimination and the Burden of Proof – Supreme Court Clarifies the Law

Ever since a crucial alteration was made to the wording of the Equality Act 2010, the question of where the burden of proof lies in employment discrimination cases has been the focus of intense legal debate. An important Supreme Court ruling has, however, resolved the issue once and for all. The case concerned a postman who was born in Nigeria and identified as black African and Nigerian. He had qualifications in computing and wished to obtain a managerial or technical role within Royal Mail.…