Ali v Heathrow Express Operating Company Ltd & Anor (HARASSMENT) (Rev1) [2022] EAT 54 (07 April 2022)

Ali v Heathrow Express Operating Company Ltd & Anor (HARASSMENT) (Rev1) [2022] EAT 54 (07 April 2022)

The tribunal was entitled to find that, in context, the use of the phrase was not directed at the claimant, was for legitimate security purposes, and it was not reasonable for the claimant to perceive the conduct as harassment under section 26 Equality Act 2010; the decision was neither perverse nor inadequately reasoned.

Citation
[2022] EAT 54
Parties
Appellant: Mr Anis Ali; First Respondent: Heathrow Express Operating Company Limited; Second Respondent: Redline Assured Security Limited
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
07 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Harassment, Direct Discrimination, Religion or Belief, Reasonableness, Section 26 Equality Act 2010
Employment Law Equality Law Harassment Direct Discrimination Religion or Belief Reasonableness Section 26 Equality Act 2010

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Anis Ali

Appellant

Heathrow Express Operating Company Limited

First Respondent

Redline Assured Security Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conduct of the second respondent amounted to harassment under section 26 Equality Act 2010
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal's decision was perverse or insufficiently reasoned

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal was entitled to find that, in context, the use of the phrase was not directed at the claimant, was for legitimate security purposes, and it was not reasonable for the claimant to perceive the conduct as harassment under section 26 Equality Act 2010; the decision was neither perverse nor inadequately reasoned.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed