Case Nos: 2206705/2021 & 2206709/2021

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr A Rouaba

Respondents: Mr S Jibara (1)

The British Broadcasting Corporation (2)

Heard at: London Central (by video)

On: 17, 18 & 19 January, 27 & 28 February,

and 1 & 2 March 2023

In chambers: 31 May and 5 June 2023

Before: Employment Judge Khan

Ms S Aslett
Dr V Weerasinghe

Representation
Claimant: In person
Respondent: Mr T Gillie, counsel

JUDGMENT
The unanimous judgment of the tribunal is that:

(1) The complaint of harassment against the first respondent is well-

founded.
(2) The complaints in relation to the decision dated 12 July 2021 do not
succeed and are dismissed.

REASONS
1. By claims presented on 19 October 2021 the claimant brought complaints of
direct race discrimination and race-related harassment. The respondents
resisted these claims.

2. By a judgment sent to the parties on 23 May 2022, the Tribunal struck out the
claim against Ms Hasan (formerly the second respondent) and found that it
was just and equitable to extend time in respect of the complaint brought
against the first respondent.

1
 Case Nos: 2206705/2021 & 2206709/2021
The issues

3. We were required to determine the following issues which were based on the
agreed list of issues:

(1) Direct race discrimination (section 13 Equality Act 2010)

1.1 The claimant has identified his protected characteristic as

Algerian.

1.2 Did the respondent/s subject the claimant to the following

treatment?

1.2.1 During a Fact-Finding meeting on 14 August 2020,

the first respondent said: “we have to mention AR’s
character and the fact he is from Algeria. There is a
violence behind it [the way he speaks], a Bedouin
character. He always shouts when he tries to give his
opinion, he comes across as sharp. He can’t explain
himself in a mild way. He always shouts and is
nervous. This belongs to his character and his cultural
character”.

1.2.2 On 12 July 2021 Mr Mitchell did not uphold the

claimant’s grievance against the first respondent,
despite recognising that ‘Bedouin character’ means
‘uncivilised’.

1.3 If so, did that treatment amount to a detriment such that it was
less favourable treatment than that which was or would have
been done to a relevant comparator in the same or materially
similar circumstances?1

1.4 If so, what was the reason for any less favourable treatment?

(2) Race-related harassment (section 26 Equality Act 2010)

2.1 Alternatively, did the respondent/s subject the claimant to the

conduct set out above at paragraph 1.2?

2.2 If so, was that conduct unwanted?

2.3 If so, was it related to the claimant’s race?

2.4 If so, did it have the purpose or effect of violating the claimant's
dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading,
humiliating or offensive environment for him (taking into account
the claimant’s perception, the other circumstances of the case

1We agree with the respondents that the actual comparators relied on by the claimant, as
well as the construction of the hypothetical comparator [1033], are not relevant
comparators as in both cases they are predicated on being subject to disciplinary action
which is not part of the impugned conduct.

2
 Case Nos: 2206705/2021 & 2206709/2021
and whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that
effect)?

The evidence and procedure

4. The hearing was a remote public hearing, conducted using the Cloud Video
Platform (CVP) under rule 46. In accordance with rule 46, the Tribunal
ensured that members of the public could attend and observe the hearing.
This was done via a notice published on Courtserve.net.

5. For the claimant, we heard evidence from: the claimant; Amer Saber; Dr
Mohamed Elashiry; and Salma Emara. The claimant also relied on the
witness statement of Alma Hassoun who did not attend to give evidence.

6. For the respondents we heard evidence from: Hevar Hasan; Safaa Jibara;
and Justin Mitchell.

7. There was a primary bundle of 1061 pages, the claimant produced a bundle
of 466 pages. We read the pages in these bundles to which we were
referred.

8. We also considered the respondents’ opening note and skeleton argument

on the law, and the closing submissions made by the parties.

9. During the third day of the hearing there was a discussion, initiated by us,
concerning material to which Ms Hasan referred when giving evidence and
which the respondents contended was covered by litigation privilege. Having
heard from Mr Gillie we were satisfied that the privilege which attached to this
material had not been waived.

10. When we resumed on 27 February 2023, for the fourth day of the hearing, we
refused to grant the claimant’s application for specific disclosure and a
witness order because we were not satisfied that the documents at issue
were disclosable nor that the proposed witness was able to give evidence
which was relevant to the issues in dispute.

11. During the fourth and fifth days, when the claimant was cross-examining Mr
Jibara, we had to intervene repeatedly to ensure that Mr Jibara was able to
complete the answers he wished to give which included having to mute the
claimant; we should also record that it was necessary to mute Mr Jibara on
occasion, although much less frequently than for the claimant. Similarly, we
also had to intervene when the claimant cross-examined Ms Hasan to ensure
that this witness was able to answer the questions put to her.

12. We were unable to hear any evidence on the sixth day of the hearing
because the claimant, who was at home, was without electricity and we were
satisfied that there were no practicable alternative arrangements which could
be made to ensure that he was able to take part in the hearing from a
different location.

13. After we had completed our deliberations, the respondents served an

addendum note in respect of a recent decision by the EAT in Adam
Greasley-Adams v Royal Mail Group Limited [2023] EAT 86. The claimant
3
 Case Nos: 2206705/2021 & 2206709/2021
was ordered to provide any comments he wished to make in response, which
he did by the deadline stipulated.2

14. References below to [ ] and [X/ ] are to the primary hearing bundle and
witness statements, respectively.

The relevant legal principles

Direct discrimination

15. Section 13(1) EQA provides that:

A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected

characteristic, A treats B less favourably that A treats or would treat others.

16. There are two elements in direct discrimination: the less favourable
treatment, and the reason for that treatment (see Glasgow City Council v
Zafar [1998] IRLR 36).

17. It is unnecessary for the protected characteristic to be the sole basis for the
less favourable treatment complained of provided it had a significant
influence on the outcome (see Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
[2000] 1 AC 510).

Harassment

18. Section 26 EQA provides that:

(1) A person (A) harasses another (B) if –

(a) A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected
characteristic, and
(b) the conduct has the purpose or effect of –
(i) violating B’s dignity, or
(ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or
offensive environment for B.
…

(4) In deciding whether conduct has the effect referred to in section (1)(b),
each of the following must be taken into account –
(a) the perception of B;
(b) the other circumstances of the case;
(c) whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.

18. Unless the impugned conduct is self-evidently related to a protected

characteristic, a Tribunal must give consideration to the mental processes of
the putative harasser in deciding whether it “related to” the protected
characteristic (see GMB v Henderson [2016] IRLR 340, CA). In Unite the
Union v Nailard [2018] IRLR 730, CA, the Court of Appeal held that an
employer would not be automatically liable where it was culpably inactive,
whether or not it knew that an employee was subjected to continuing
2In responding to the respondents’ addendum note, the claimant made additional
submissions and sought to rely on four emails in relation to other matters, which we have
not considered, in the interests of finality.

4
 Case Nos: 2206705/2021 & 2206709/2021
harassment, unless the mental processes of the individual decision-taker had
been found to have been significantly influenced, consciously or
unconsciously, by the relevant characteristic.

19. In Pemberton v Inwood [2018] IRLR 542, CA Underhill LJ re-formulated his

earlier guidance in Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal [2009] IRLR 336,
EAT, as follows:

''In order to decide whether any conduct falling within sub-paragraph (1)(a) of
section 26 EqA has either of the proscribed effects under sub-paragraph
(1)(b), a tribunal must consider both (by reason of sub-section 4(a)) whether
the putative victim perceives themselves to have suffered the effect in
question (the subjective question) and (by reason of sub-section 4(c)) whether
it was reasonable for the conduct to be regarded as having that effect (the
objective question). It must also take into account all the other circumstances
(subsection 4(b)). The relevance of the subjective question is that if the
claimant does not perceive their dignity to have been violated, or an adverse
environment created, then the conduct should not be found to have had that
effect. The relevance of the objective question is that if it was not reasonable
for the conduct to be regarded as violating the claimant’s dignity or creating an
adverse environment for him or her, then it should not be found to have done
so.''

The claimant’s subjective perception of the offence must therefore be

objectively reasonable.

20. As the statutory language makes clear, there can be no harassment on a

date at which the claimant is not yet aware of the conduct which is later relied
on to bring such a complaint (see Greasley-Adams at para 20).3

21. In Grant v HM Land Registry [2011] EWCA Civ 769, CA, Elias LJ
emphasised that “violating dignity”, “intimidating, hostile, degrading,
humiliating, offensive” are significant words:

“Tribunals must not cheapen the significance of these words. They are an
important control to prevent trivial acts causing minor upsets being caught by
the concept of harassment.”

The same point was made in Dhaliwal:

“We accept that not every racially slanted adverse comment or conduct may
constitute the violation of a person’s dignity. Dignity is not necessarily violated
by things said or done which are trivial or transitory, particularly if it should
have been clear that any offence was unintended. While it is very important
that employers, and tribunals, are sensitive to the hurt that can be caused by
racially offensive comments or conduct (or indeed comments on other grounds
covered by the cognate legislation to which we have referred), it is also
important not to encourage a culture of hypersensitivity or the imposition of
legal liability in respect of every unfortunate phrase.”

5
 Case Nos: 2206705/2021 & 2206709/2021
This was endorsed by the EAT in Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board v
Hughes & Ors UKEAT/0179/13/JOJ who said this:

“The word “violating” is a strong word. Offending against dignity, hurting it, is
insufficient. Violating may be a word the strength of which is sometimes
overlooked. The same might be said of the words “intimidating” etc. All look for
effects which are serious and marked, and not those which are, though real,
truly of lesser consequence.”

22. The words relied on by the claimant must be taken in their context (see
Warby v Wunda Group plc UKEAT/0434/11/CEA; and also Weeks v Newham
College of Further Education UKEAT/0630/11/ZT; and Bham v 2Gether NHS
Foundation Trust UKEAT/0417/14/DXA).

Detriment

23. Section 39(2) EQA provides that:

An employer (A) must not discriminate against an employee of A’s (B) –

…

(a) by subjecting him to any other detriment.

24. A complainant seeking to establish detriment is not required to show that he

has suffered a physical or economic adverse consequence. It is sufficient to
show that a reasonable employee would or might take the view that they had
been disadvantaged, although an unjustified sense of a grievance cannot
amount to a detriment (see Shamoon v Chief Constable of RUC [2003] IRLR
285, HL).

25. The EHRC Employment Code of Practice provides that:

“generally, a detriment is anything which the individual concerned might

reasonably consider changed their position for the worse or put them at a
disadvantage.”

26. Any alleged detriment must be capable of being regarded objectively as such
(see St Helens MBC v Derbyshire [2007] ICR 841).

Burden of proof

27. Section 136 EQA provides:

(1) If there are facts from which the court could decide, in the absence of any
other explanation, that a person (A) contravened the provision concerned, the
court must hold that the contravention occurred.
(2) But subsection (2) does not apply if A shows that A did not contravene the
provision.

3As is clear from the respondents’ addendum note and the claimant’s response to the
same, there is no dispute between the parties on this point.

6
 Case Nos: 2206705/2021 & 2206709/2021
28. Where the two-stage approach envisaged by section 136 is adopted a
claimant must at the first stage establish a prima facie case. This requires the
claimant to prove facts from which a Tribunal could conclude, on the balance
of probabilities, that the respondent had committed an unlawful act of
discrimination. This requires something more than a mere difference in status
and treatment (see Madarassy v Nomura International plc [2007] ICR 867,
CA) or, in relation to harassment, establishing that the conduct was
unwanted and had the proscribed effect (see Raj v Capita Business Services
Limited [2019] IRLR 1057, EAT, at para 58).

29. In many cases it will be appropriate to focus on the reason why the employer
treated the claimant as it did and if the reason demonstrates that the
protected characteristic played no part whatsoever in the adverse treatment,
the complaint fails (see Chief Constable of Kent Constabulary v Bowler
UKEAT/0214/16/RN). Accordingly, the burden of proof provisions have no
role to play where a tribunal is in a position to make positive findings of fact
(see Hewage v Grampian Health Board [2012] IRLR 870, SC at para 32).

30. Only if discrimination is inherent in the act complained of is the Tribunal

released from the obligation to enquire into the mental processes of putative
discriminator.

Mutually exclusive complaints under the EQA

31. A Tribunal cannot find both direct discrimination under section 13 EQA and
harassment under section 26 in respect of the same treatment. This is
because section 212(1) provides that:

‘detriment’ does not, subject to subsection (5) include conduct which amounts
to harassment

The facts

32. Having considered all of the evidence, we make the following findings on the
balance of probabilities. These findings are limited to points that are relevant
to the legal issues. We would pause here to emphasise that although we
have referred to allegations which the claimant made in relation to the
previous investigations undertaken by the second respondent concerning the
claimant’s alleged conduct we have not made any findings in relation to this
wider background nor in relation to the allegations which the claimant brought
against Hever Hassan and the second respondent’s investigation into the
same.

33. The claimant has been employed as a Journalist by the second respondent
since 30 September 2012. He is Algerian. Safaa Jibara, the first respondent,
is employed by the second respondent as a Senior Journalist. He is of Iraqi
national origin. Both work within the Arabic Service of the BBC World
Service. At the relevant time they worked alongside other journalists,
including: Amer Saber; Dr Mohamed Elashiry; Salma Emara, Alma Hassoun
and Hever Hassan; all of whom were managed by Mustafa Kadhum, News
Editor, and Mohamed Yehia, Senior News Editor.

7
 Case Nos: 2206705/2021 & 2206709/2021
Fact-finding investigation conducted by Mr Finn

34. Following a meeting held on 9 July 2019 to discuss a staff survey, complaints
were made by the claimant against his managers, Mr Kadhum and Mr Yehia,
and vice versa.

35. Matt Finn, HR Specialist, Support at Work, was appointed to conduct a fact-
finding investigation in relation to these complaints. In addition to the three
complainants, Mr Finn interviewed only two of the other 11 colleagues who
attended the staff survey meeting under investigation: Ms Hasan and Mr
Jibara. As Mr Finn set out in his investigation report, this was despite being
given a list of colleagues who had been present at this meeting, by the
claimant; he interviewed Ms Hasan because she had been identified by Mr
Kadhum as one of several female colleagues who had left that meeting
feeling distressed; and he also interviewed Mr Jibara because none of the
complainants had identified him, he had not been reported as having left the
meeting early and he had not given evidence in relation to any of the
previous investigations undertaken into the claimant’s conduct. Mr Finn
attempted to make contact with Mr Saber and Dr Elashiry without success,
although, as will be seen, it is likely that he failed to take all reasonable steps
to obtain their testimonies, and this failure to interview these potential
witnesses not only meant that Mr Finn omitted to consider relevant evidence
but undermined the claimant’s confidence in the fact-finding investigation.

The interview with Mr Jibara on 14 August 2020

36. The fact-finding interview with Mr Jibara took place on 14 August 2020. As
with all of the meetings which are referred to in this judgment, it took place
remotely. At the start, Mr Finn clarified that his team supported “cases of
alleged bullying and/or harassment” and he had been asked to investigate
allegations concerning the meeting on 9 July 2019. Mr Jibara responded
immediately to explain that his power of recall was affected by trauma in
addition to the passage of time, he had been writing notes during the meeting
in question (which, impliedly, were not in connection with the meeting itself)
and whilst he remembered that “something happened at that meeting”, was
unable to “recall every specific detail”. Mr Finn then explained that a note-
taker was present to take minutes; these minutes were intended to be an “an
accurate summary of the meeting” not a verbatim record; and they would be
sent to Mr Jibara early the next week when he would have the opportunity to
comment on them and agree on the final record. He also explained that
although this record would be confidential, it would become “disclosable” if a
formal process was triggered by which we find he meant a formal process
under the second respondent’s Anti-Bullying and Harassment or Disciplinary
policies (something which the former policy expressly provides [114]). We
accept Mr Jibara’s evidence that this was the first time he was involved in an
investigation conducted by the second respondent and he misunderstood
that the record of the fact-finding interview would not be disclosed to the
claimant unless a legal process was initiated.

37. Turning to the allegations under investigation, Mr Finn asked Mr Jibara to

comment on the claimant’s relationship with management and he was
recorded as stating [146]:

8
 Case Nos: 2206705/2021 & 2206709/2021
“There’s a lot of background between him and the management. He has an
attitude towards them. Before that we have to mention AR’s character and the
fact he is from Algeria. There is a violence behind it [the way he speaks], a
Bedouin character. He always shouts when he tries to give his opinion, he
comes across as sharp. He can’t explain himself in a mild way. He always
shouts and is nervous. This belongs to his character and his cultural
character.”

The claimant complains about the words we have underlined. What is written
in square brackets in this extract (and in the next paragraph) was added by
Mr Finn. It is agreed that this is part of the record of the meeting on 14
August 2020 (which was sent to the claimant on 11 November 2020) [145-
149].

38. When Mr Jibara was asked by Mr Finn if the claimant was “sharp to everyone
then?”, he replied:

“It’s his nature. He doesn’t deliberately do that. He doesn’t mean to offend

others, it’s his character.”

Mr Jibara told Mr Finn that the claimant had interrupted Mr Kadhum, “he
expressed himself sharply” and gestured with his hand and leaning forward
said “This man”. When asked whether the claimant was shouting at the same
time as he was pointing at Mr Kadhum, Mr Jibara stated [147]:

“Yes. That’s his nature. He was totally nervous [angry?] at the time. I
remember that.”

Mr Jibara repeatedly used the word “nervous” to describe the claimant’s

demeanour. Mr Finn queried this as follows:

“Why do you think he was nervous? From what you’re telling me that doesn’t
quite sound like nervous behaviour?

to which Mr Jibara stated:

“Previous clashes with MK. He was angry. And that’s his nature.”

We therefore accept Mr Jibara’s evidence that by “nervous” he meant “angry”

which is what Mr Finn had surmised.

39. When Mr Finn asked why the claimant “may have felt he couldn’t contribute
to the meeting?" [148], Mr Jibara explained:

“When there is a history you can begin to feel there is an attitude against you”.

When he was asked whether there was anything else which was relevant, Mr
Jibara stated:

“The character of AR, his personality and culture. I hope they can resolve this
dispute in peace and make him calm and understand his personality”

Finally, Mr Finn queried whether the claimant’s conduct at the meeting:

“was an example of AR’s personality and culture or do you feel it’s something
9
 Case Nos: 2206705/2021 & 2206709/2021
more concerning that impacts other people?”

to which Mr Jibara responded:

“This kind of behaviour, I understand him, it’s his style to express himself in
this way. When you understand that you can deal with him. Sometimes he is
very cooperative with other colleagues.”

40. Mr Finn sent the draft interview notes to Mr Jibara at 11:35am on 17 August
2020 [144] when he reiterated that they were not a verbatim account. Mr
Jibara was invited to make any proposed amendments “[i]f you think I’ve
missed or misrepresented anything that was said” and was asked to clarify
whether he had meant “angry” instead of “nervous”. He was given until the
end of 19 August to respond – although Mr Finn agreed to extend this
deadline to fit around Mr Jibara’s shift pattern, if needed – and absent any
response by that date he would be taken as having agreed to this record
which would then become the final version.

41. Mr Jibara failed to respond. His evidence was that he did not have time to
see Mr Finn’s email. He was at work until 7.30pm on the day of the interview.
He had to complete an article that evening. He then had three days off work,
the first of which was spent dealing with responses to his article including on
social media and by email. He recalled that the draft meeting notes were sent
to him on his second or third day off. He had several meetings on his first day
back at work by which time Mr Finn’s deadline had passed. Whilst we accept
Mr Jibara’s evidence that he was busy, he was evidently monitoring his
emails. We also take account of the fact that Mr Finn had forewarned Mr
Jibara to expect to receive the record of this interview within days. We find
that it follows that Mr Jibara was at that time unconcerned about what he told
Mr Finn, as he would otherwise have ensured that he reviewed this record
and made any necessary changes to it. In fact, Mr Jibara did not read the
record of his interview with Mr Finn until he became aware of the claimant’s
grievance, almost nine months later.

42. We find that the part of the record of this fact-finding interview that the
claimant complains about (as well as the rest of this record) is accurate and
complete i.e. there are no material omissions, for the following reasons. In his
witness statement produced for these proceedings, Mr Jibara qualified what
he had told Mr Finn in the following terms [SJ/42]: firstly, that English was not
his first language, although he agreed that he was very proficient in English;
secondly, being questioned had the potential to trigger previous trauma and
he was therefore nervous about this fact-finding meeting; thirdly, given the
foregoing, he felt that he had been:

“a bit naïve to make these sorts of fairly complex points…to people who may
not have had the same understanding as I do about Middle Eastern
cultures…and my English may not have allowed me to express myself orally
as completely as was necessary”;

fourthly, and consequently, what he had tried to convey to Mr Finn had got
“lost in translation”. However, Mr Jibara did not deny using the impugned
words ascribed to him when he was questioned about them during the
investigation into the claimant’s grievance. He agreed that he used the words
“Bedouin character” as a “description”, asserting that it had positive
10
 Case Nos: 2206705/2021 & 2206709/2021
connotations. In respect of his use of the “wrong descriptive words” [570] Mr
Jibara singled out using “nervous” instead of “angry”. Although Mr Jibara
qualified and amplified what he had meant by the words he had used (as will
be seen) – to the second respondent and during these proceedings – he
accepted that he had not provided this context at the interview with Mr Finn.
We do not therefore accept Mr Jibara’s evidence to the Tribunal that he had
used the following words which had been omitted from the record (as
underlined):

“…the fact he is from Algeria, an Arab country like my country. These

countries, Algeria and Iraq there is a violence behind it, a Bedouin country…”

We would add, firstly, as noted above, Mr Jibara agreed that he had used the
word “character” (not “country”); secondly, whilst Mr Jibara said (when
interviewed as part of the claimant’s grievance) that he felt that Iraq and
Algeria shared “the same character and culture” and that he and the claimant
came from “a similar background…[and] places where people have been
traumatised due to war” [569], it is notable that throughout his interview with
Mr Finn, Mr Jibara referred to “his [the claimant’s] nature…character…
personality and culture” and not once to sharing any of the same attributes;
and thirdly, we do not find it plausible that the other underlined words were
omitted by the note-taker (whom we do not find would have required an
understanding of Middle Eastern culture or history in order to have recorded
them, if they had been said).

43. Mr Jibara had therefore related the claimant’s conduct of always shouting,
coming across as being sharp, being unable to explain himself in a mild way,
with the claimant’s Algerian nationality which had a “violence behind it and a
Bedouin character”. We find that this was derogatory and self-evidently
related to the claimant’s race. We do not find that this is equivalent to the
claimant’s statement when Mr Finn interviewed him [171]:

“…sometimes – this is a cultural thing – we are louder than Europeans. It

doesn’t mean I am angry; it how I speak normally”

because whilst placing the way he communicated in a cultural context, he

was referring to himself, as well as unspecified others with whom he
identified (which he confirmed in oral evidence was to other Algerians), in a
non-derogatory way. For example, we accept the distinction which the
claimant made, when he gave oral evidence, between speaking loudly and
shouting.

44. Mr Jibara’s evidence was that he was not saying the claimant was violent nor
that he was a Bedouin but was referring to Arab society more widely. His
evidence was also that at the time when Mr Finn interviewed him he felt that
Bedouin had a positive connotation, and, as a result of the claimant’s
complaint, he had discovered through further research that it had several
meanings and could be used as a pejorative term [SJ/38]. However, Mr
Jibara agreed during his oral evidence that this was not the first time he was
aware of the negative use of the term, as he said that people from cities
always tried to discriminate against rural peoples, from tribes. He was
therefore cognisant that ‘Bedouin’ also had, or was capable of having, a
negative connotation when he was interviewed by Mr Finn.

11
 Case Nos: 2206705/2021 & 2206709/2021
45. Overall, notwithstanding our finding that Mr Jibara’s impugned comments
were objectively derogatory and related to the claimant’s race, we accept his
evidence, taking account of the other answers he gave to Mr Finn which we
have set out above, that his intention was to explain and mitigate what he
recalled about the claimant’s conduct during the staff survey meeting by
placing it in a specific cultural context. This is what Mr Jibara explained
during the investigation into the claimant’s grievance against him [570]:

“I want to clarify that there are two sides of my testimony: the first is objective
which related to what I have seen or remember from that meeting…The
second part is subjective which related to the interpretation (totally personal
interpretation and derived from personal experience) I tried to find compromise
to solve the problem peacefully between the two by my emphasis on the
cultural differences as pretext [sic] to explain what happened…”

46. Mr Finn completed his investigation report on 20 August 2020 [150-157], in

which he recommended a formal review of the allegations against the
claimant under the Disciplinary Policy for breaching the BBC’s Values, Code
of Conduct and/or Anti-Bullying and Harassment Policy. There were two
allegations which concerned the events on 9 July 2019 i.e. before and during
the staff survey meeting and a third allegation which was added by Mr Finn
which arose from his investigation. In relation to the claimant’s alleged
conduct during the staff survey meeting, Mr Finn relied on the evidence
provided by Mr Jibara and Ms Hasan which he found corroborated the
allegations made by Mr Kadhum and Mr Yehia; which in the case of Mr
Jibara’s evidence was about “the claimant’s style of communication towards
his management, who he has “an attitude towards”” [153] and that he pointed
and shouted at Mr Kadhum and “always shouts when he tries to give his
opinion, he comes across as sharp. He can’t explain himself in a mild way”
[154]. Mr Finn also relied on Mr Jibara’s evidence, in part, to reject one of the
allegations that the claimant had made against his managers.

47. The third allegation which was added by Mr Finn was that the claimant had
made derogatory and/or malicious comments about Mr Kadhum during the
fact-finding meeting on 10 August 2020 [156]. Although we make no
inference of discrimination from this, and it is material that this third allegation
was related to comments made by the claimant about matters which Mr Finn
was satisfied had already been investigated, we observe that as a member of
a team tasked with investigating allegations of bullying and harassment, Mr
Finn at the same time failed to consider whether Mr Jibara’s comments were
potentially unacceptable, if not discriminatory. As will be seen, unlike Mr Finn,
the disciplinary and appeal managers concluded that Mr Jibara’s comments
were unacceptable.

48. Owing to the need to complete a separate grievance which had been brought
by Mr Yehia against the claimant (which was not upheld), he was not
informed of this outcome until 3 November 2020.

The claimant’s complaints about the fact-finding investigation

49. The claimant’s first complaint about Mr Finn’s investigation was made on 10
November [210] by email to Michelle Griffiths, Senior HR Business Partner,
which was that in coming to his decision, Mr Finn had failed to interview the
five witnesses he had referred him to.
12
 Case Nos: 2206705/2021 & 2206709/2021
50. The claimant received the investigation report with appendices, including the
record of the fact-finding meeting with Mr Jibara, the next day, on 11
November [207]. He emailed Ms Griffiths on 13 November [208] to complain
that the report was “unfair” and “very distressing”, and to explain that he was
“preparing my concerns” about the report which “are extremely serious and
damaging”. In a second email sent to Ms Griffiths that morning [216-217], the
claimant noted that this was the sixth case brought by his managers against
him, the previous five having been “dropped as ungrounded” and this
process had been ongoing throughout the last three years. He queried the
selection of witnesses whom the claimant believed were sympathetic to his
managers and the failure to interview “neutral” witnesses which he felt had
resulted in a one-sided process and a:

“continuation of the campaign led by these two editors to intimidate me and

punish me for speaking on behalf of my colleagues and exposing mediocrity
and favouritism”.

He added that Mr Finn’s decisions “…were totally wrong and unfair. They
also have a devastating impact on my wellbeing.” In respect of the witness
statements, the claimant complained they contained:

“a barrage of insults, degrading reference to my person and racist comments

towards me. This is happening in formal proceeding[s] of the BBC [a]nd their
racism and abuse have not only been accepted but used to charge me. How is
that acceptable…One of the witnesses saying he is violent because he is
Algerian…”

He went on to assert that the:

“racism and degrading references in the witness statements must lead to

discredit the authors of these shameful and heinous comments”.

Referring to the third allegation, which Mr Finn had added, the claimant
asked “how about racism and degrading reference to personal character? Is
this fair?”

51. Three days later, on 16 November 2020, the claimant emailed Ms Griffiths
again [211] to complain about the investigation report as being “unfair, biased
and incomplete” and that the witnesses made:

“racist comments towards me in their statements and used degrading

reference and personal attacks against me in breach of the laws and
regulations. Matt not only did not stop them he also accepted these racist
comments and degrading references and used them as evidence in the
report…”

Although the claimant did not, in this correspondence to Ms Griffiths, specify

who these witnesses were or the statements they had made which had
caused him offence, it is evident from his subsequent complaints that he was
referring to the excerpts of the interviews with Mr Jebari and Ms Hasan that
were in his claim form, and which, in relation to Mr Jebari centred on the
extract of the interview highlighted above (paragraph 37). Whilst the claimant
clearly viewed Mr Finn’s report and the selection of these witnesses as part
of the campaign of bullying and harassment by his managers, we accept that

13
 Case Nos: 2206705/2021 & 2206709/2021
he was genuinely distressed by the statements themselves, as is
demonstrated by this contemporaneous correspondence. This included his
complaint in a follow-up email to Ms Griffiths on 17 November [219] about
these witnesses having made “racist comments and degrading reference [sic]
when talking about me”.

52. Ms Griffiths replied [215-216] that the claimant would have an opportunity to
ventilate his concerns about the investigation as part of the disciplinary
process when additional witnesses could be interviewed. She copied her
response to Amy O’Sullivan, HR Case Manager, Support at Work Team. The
claimant responded that he would therefore be bringing a grievance against
Mr Finn “for biased and unfair fact-finding…”

53. We find that the claimant’s complaints about Mr Finn’s investigation on 10

and 13 November, prompted Ms O’Sullivan to question Mr Finn about his
investigation. Although Ms Griffiths had not copied Ms O’Sullivan in to the
claimant’s correspondence with her prior to 16 November, it is likely that she
had forwarded this earlier correspondence to Ms O’Sullivan because the
latter emailed Mr Finn at 10:01 on 16 November [214], which was before the
claimant’s first email to Ms Griffiths on that date, and queried why Mr Finn
had only interviewed two out of a potential 11 witnesses and what efforts he
had made to contact Dr Elashiry and Ms Saber, which was clearly related to
the claimant’s complaints about witness selection. In their ensuing
correspondence on this issue [213-214]: Mr Finn explained that another
colleague had recommended that he interview “a couple” of witnesses, to
which Ms O’Sullivan advised that “a couple more would have evidenced
more balance”; and she noted that Mr Finn had chased Dr Elashiry and Ms
Saber only once, and recommended that in future he took additional steps to
contact potential witnesses, including arranging interviews with other
witnesses who were available.

54. The claimant’s point of contact in HR in relation to the disciplinary process

was Lorette Makamian, HR Specialist, Pay Equality Unit. They corresponded
on 17 and 18 November 2020 [223-230] when: the claimant complained that
Mr Finn had failed to address his allegations against his managers; and Ms
Makamian advised that Mr Finn had investigated these allegations, had
found no evidence to substantiate them, and there was no right of appeal
against the conclusion of a fact-finding investigation although the claimant
could raise any concerns he had about the investigation at the disciplinary
hearing. As will be seen, there was an initial delay in confirming that the
claimant’s complaints of discrimination against Mr Jibara, Ms Hasan and Mr
Finn would be investigated.

The disciplinary process conducted by Jamie Dodds

55. The claimant attended a disciplinary hearing with Jamie Dodds,

Commissioning Executive, Entertainment & Comedy, on 20 November 2020.
The findings we make about this meeting are taken from the respondent’s
record of this hearing [233-257] (which included the additional comments that
the claimant sent to Mr Dodds on 30 November).

56. At the outset, the claimant reiterated his complaints about Mr Finn’s
investigation. Mr Dodds confirmed that he was able to interview other
14
 Case Nos: 2206705/2021 & 2206709/2021
witnesses but would not be investigating the allegations against Mr Yehia
and Mr Kadhum. The claimant explained that his difficulties with his
managers began in 2018 when he applied unsuccessfully for the role of
Senior Broadcast Journalist and complained of favouritism when he was not
successful and which he subsequently brought a Tribunal claim about (which
was dismissed). He reiterated that there had been six grievances which had
been instigated by them and complained: “I am on death row always waiting
for a new complaint against me…I am living in hell” [250]; “this nightmare of
complaints which are taking their toll in my health” [252]; “there is a term in
Arabic that means you cannot hurt a dead body, I am already a dead body”
[254]. In relation to Mr Jibara, the claimant asserted that he was not impartial
as he had been a friend of one of the managers for many years and had
recently been given a promotion, and he complained about Mr Jibara’s
statement in that [251]:

“He suggested I was violent because of where I am from…These are racist

comments towards me…the Hearing Manager should dismiss these
statements because of the personal attack…You cannot attack a person’s
character when you are testifying, that’s unacceptable…”

After Mr Dodds had questioned the claimant in relation to the three

allegations in scope of his investigation, the claimant stated that he had
asked for mediation with his managers “so that we can stop this nightmare”
[253] which was something that Mr Dodds confirmed he was able potentially
to recommend. Mr Dodds committed to investigate further by interviewing
other witnesses.

57. In a handover note written to Ms O’Sullivan on 30 November 2020 [258],

concerning the progress of Mr Dodds’ investigation, Ms Makamian confirmed
that she had advised Mr Dodds to consider the claimant’s complaint that Mr
Jibara had made a racist comment and whether any action should be taken.
However, as will be seen, when Mr Dodds was subsequently interviewed
about his involvement he stated that he had not felt this was part of his remit,
although he agreed that Mr Jibara’s comments were unacceptable; and no
further steps were taken at this stage.

58. Coincidentally, in an email sent by the claimant to Ms Makamian the next day
which was headed “racism is a heinous crime” [263] he referred to a German
football pundit who had apologised for making a comment which the claimant
said was similar to that made by Mr Jibara and wrote:

“In the UK and the BBC the same racist comments are tolerated and accepted
as testimony victimizing the victim of racial abuse. This is disturbing and very
concerning…”

Ms O’Sullivan wrote to the claimant the following day in relation to several

matters including this email [261-262] when she confirmed that Mr Dodds
was aware of the claimant’s concerns and would be giving consideration to
them when he came to his decision.

59. Mr Dodds wrote to the claimant on 18 December 2020 [264-270] to confirm

that he had upheld the two allegations relating to the claimant’s conduct
towards his managers on 9 July 2019 which he found to be in breach of the
BBC Code of Conduct i.e. treating others with respect and which warranted
15
 Case Nos: 2206705/2021 & 2206709/2021
the sanction of a written warning effective for 12 months. Although we find
that this was not a final written warning as it was not expressed as such, we
find that the claimant genuinely understood that he had been given this more
severe sanction because Mr Dodds warned him that any further misconduct
could result in further disciplinary action and put his employment at risk. Mr
Dodds confirmed that all the staff who had attended the staff survey meeting
had been contacted, only three of whom had agreed to provide statements –
Ms Hassoun, Ali Al-Shawaf and a third person who wished to remain
anonymous – which had been forwarded to the claimant who had responded
with comments. (As was discovered subsequently, Mr Dodds had not in fact
contacted Dr Elashiry or Mr Saber [537].) Mr Dodds explained that he had
not upheld the third allegation which had been added by Mr Finn, despite his
concern that the claimant had made comments about Mr Kadhum’s character
which had already been investigated, because he had concluded that the
claimant had acted without malice. He encouraged the claimant to consider
mediation to support his future working relationships with Mr Yehia and Mr
Kadhum (the claimant had already told Mr Dodds that they had previously
rejected informal mediation and he subsequently clarified that Dr Elashiry
and Mr Saber had acted as his intermediaries in this regard [391]). In respect
of Mr Jibara’s comments, Mr Dodds noted [269]:

“During this process you have raised concerns regarding comments made by
Saffa [sic] during his interview. I would like to assure you I have taken these
concerns seriously and appropriate action will be taken.”

We accept Mr Jibara’s evidence that he had no involvement in the

disciplinary process which was overseen by Mr Dodds as there were no
documents which suggested this. Further, as will be seen, it is likely that no
action was taken by the second respondent in relation to Mr Jibara.

The claimant’s disciplinary appeal and further grievances

60. The claimant emailed Ms O’Sullivan within 10 minutes of receiving this

outcome [271] to confirm that he wanted to appeal and to submit grievances
against Mr Jibara for making “racist comments towards me in a formal bbc
[sic] proceeding” and Mr Finn for, amongst other things, allowing “a witness
to make racist comments towards me”. He followed this up with a second
email that afternoon when he set out four complaints about Mr Finn’s
investigation and confirmed that he wanted to submit a grievance against Mr
Finn “for the above abuse including condoning racism against me”. He added
that he wanted to submit a grievance against “the witnesses who made racist
comments against me” i.e. Mr Jibara and Ms Hasan. In another email which
was sent to Ms O’Sullivan and others, on 21 December [291-292], the
claimant enumerated 12 grounds of appeal against the disciplinary outcome.

61. Ms O’Sullivan replied on 21 December [289-291] to acknowledge the

claimant’s appeal when she told the claimant that his grievances would not
be accepted at this stage as his concerns needed to be set out as grounds of
appeal (which the claimant had already done in the email he had sent earlier
that day). Ms O’Sullivan went on to respond to each of the points set out in
the claimant’s second email of 18 December when she stated that Mr Dodds
had considered the claimant’s complaint that Mr Finn had allowed the
witnesses to make racist and degrading comments and thereby condoned
these comments and she advised the claimant that if he felt that this had not
16
 Case Nos: 2206705/2021 & 2206709/2021
been “fully considered” – there is no evidence that Mr Dodds considered Mr
Finn’s actions in this regard at all – he could raise this in his disciplinary
appeal (which, again, the claimant had done in his earlier email). The
claimant sent two further emails on that date to assert that it remained
necessary to consider his grievance against Mr Finn before the disciplinary
appeal was heard and he wished to submit a formal grievance against Mr
Kadhum and Mr Yehia in relation to their conduct at the staff survey meeting
because it had not been investigated. He wrote to Ms O’Sullivan again the
next day [288] when he reiterated the need to consider these grievances
when he stated:

“the racial abuse I was a victim of in a BBC proceeding cannot go unpunished.

I would like to know what measures have been taken by the BBC to deal with
this extremely serious offense [sic]…”

The claimant wrote again the following day, on 23 December 2020 [295-297]
when he complained in the same vein:

“Racism is a criminal offense [sic]. The police should have been involved…A
couple of months ago a minor had been taken into custody for making racist
comments on social media. This is an adult working for the BBC making racist
comments in a formal proceeding about a colleague. And the BBC is reluctant
to investigate him. It is extremely disturbing…”

62. Ms O’Sullivan replied on 24 December [294-295] to confirm that the

claimant’s allegations against Mr Kadhum and Mr Yehia would be
investigated as would his complaint about Mr Jibara’s statement (some two
months after the claimant had initially complained that it was degrading and
racially discriminatory); his complaints about Mr Finn’s investigation would be
considered as part of his appeal, although she did not clarify whether the
claimant’s complaint that Mr Finn had allowed Mr Jibara to make a racist
statement, thereby condoning it, would also be investigated.

63. In an email to Ms Griffiths sent on 4 January 2021 [298-301] the claimant

submitted further complaints against Mr Finn which reiterated many of the
points he had already raised.

64. Aqsa Zaidi, HR Case Manager, Support at Work, wrote to the claimant on 14
January 2021 [302] to invite him to a meeting to hear his disciplinary appeal
and grievance in relation to the investigation process. She wrote to the
claimant again on 1 February 2021 [308] to invite him to a meeting under the
Anti-Bullying and Harassment Policy to hear his allegations against Mr
Kadhum and Mr Yehia, and also Mr Jibara and Ms Hasan. The disciplinary
appeal and grievance hearing was subsequently postponed as the manager
who had been initially appointed to deal with these matters was no longer
able to act as a hearing manager.

The grievance hearing conducted by Alan Moser on 4 February 2020

65. The claimant’s grievance was initially investigated by Alan Moser,

Programme Manager, who interviewed him on 4 February 2020 [310-324].
Ms Zaida, who was also present to provide HR support, began by explaining
that the meeting was being held to discuss the concerns which the claimant
had raised on 22 December 2020. She also referred to the claimant’s email
17
 Case Nos: 2206705/2021 & 2206709/2021
dated 26 January 2021 in which he confirmed that his grievance complaints
were [311]:

“‘against MK and MY for disrespecting me and threatening me in the meetings

that claim was ignored by Matt Finn in the fact finds [sic] and later the
disciplinary HM [Hearing Manager]’. The second point of your grounds is
against SJ and HH for making racist and degrading comments in the witness
statements and they also deliberately and maliciously lied to the HM”.

In relation to Mr Jibara’s statement, the claimant complained that “What he

said here was clear racism towards me” [320] and began to read out the
offending extract from the statement before stopping at “Bedouin character”
and explaining that [321]:

“In Arabic culture Bedouin means savage and someone who cannot abide by
the norms of society and is always preaching and is rebellious and he is
calling me Bedouin. This is so racist and offensive…He goes on to say ‘He
always shouts….This belongs to his character and his cultural character’. This
has been heard by a manager and accepted…Would you accept someone
saying to you you’re violent because you are from that country?”

That together with what the claimant also wrote in a document he forwarded
to the second respondent on 9 February (see the next paragraph) was, in a
nutshell, the offence which Mr Jibara’s statement had caused the claimant.
When Mr Moser asked him what outcome he wanted, the claimant said that
“What I want is this nightmare to stop, the intimidation, the humiliation and
the abuse of power and authority” [322] and he went on to say that he
wanted “these liars” to be “severely punished” [323].

66. The next day, on 5 February 2021, the claimant submitted further documents
[325-332] in relation to his grievance against Mr Finn (which repeated his
email dated 4 January 2021) and disciplinary appeal. He submitted additional
documents on 9 February headed “SJ lies and racist comments” and “HH lies
and degrading comments” when he asked that the hearing manager
interviewed Mr Saber, Dr Elashiry, Ms Hassoun and Ms Emara [336-343]. In
relation to the offending part of Mr Jibara’s statement, the claimant expanded
on what he told Mr Moser in the following terms [337]:

“SJ links the character he alleges I have to my country. This is blatantly racist.
He also accuses me of violence and links it to my character which [he]
describe[s] it as Bedouin. This accusation is extremely serious. By Bedouin he
means savage. A rebellious person who does not abide by the rules and does
not respect the norms. It is from the dichotomy Bedouin v civilised. He is
calling me uncivilised because I am from Algeria. SJ says I always shout and I
am nervous which is a lie…It is a total fabrication to please his bosses. SJ
associates the alleged shouting and nervousness to my character and my
culture as Algerian. This is racism again.”

The disciplinary appeal and grievances heard by Justin Mitchell

67. Justin Mitchell, Principal Engineer in Research and Development, was

appointed as the disciplinary appeal hearing manager. He interviewed the
claimant on 22 February 2021 when he was accompanied by his NUJ
representative. The findings we make are based on the version of the second
respondent's record of this meeting which includes the annotations made by
18
 Case Nos: 2206705/2021 & 2206709/2021
the claimant [386-414]. Ms Zaidi who was also in attendance confirmed that
in addition to the claimant’s appeal, the concerns he had raised about Mr
Finn would be considered. In relation to his complaint that Mr Finn had
condoned the making of racist comments, the claimant explained [410]:

“These witnesses made racist and degrading comments towards me and he

didn't object. He is condoning the witnesses saying that I am violent and
uncivilised because Algerians are uncivilised.”

When Mr Mitchell suggested that Mr Finn had been reporting on, as opposed
to condoning, what the witness had said, the claimant made the point that Mr
Finn had not taken the same approach to him. At the end of this hearing, the
claimant referred again to the number of grievances which his managers had
brought against him (which he said was now seven) and to the
accompanying “four years of torture” [414]. He agreed to mediate but noted
that his managers had refused to consider this and confirmed that his
preference was to be redeployed to BBC Africa. When, during an earlier part
of this hearing, the claimant alluded to his complaint about Mr Jibara, Ms
Zaidi reminded him that it was being considered under a separate grievance
process.

68. When the claimant submitted additional grievances against his managers on
26 and 27 February 2021, the grievance process was delayed to enable HR
to review whether any of the matters now being raised had already been
investigated, and when Mr Moser’s workload precluded his ongoing
involvement as hearing manager, Mr Mitchell was appointed to take over
conduct of this investigation as well.

69. Mr Mitchell met with the claimant again on 19 April 2021 as part of his
investigation into three allegations the claimant had made against Mr
Kadhum and Mr Yehia. The claimant was accompanied at this hearing by a
different NUJ representative. Ms Zaidi was also in attendance. The findings
we have made are based on the version of the second respondent’s note of
this hearing which include the claimant’s comments [468-478]. At the start of
this hearing, Mr Mitchell explained that because of the overlap between the
claimant’s four grievances and the disciplinary appeal he had been appointed
to deal with all of them. He confirmed that the complaints made against Mr
Finn were being dealt with as part of the appeal. Ms Zaidi confirmed that Mr
Mitchell would also be considering the notes of the claimant’s grievance
hearing with Mr Moser so that it would not be necessary for the claimant to
go over the same ground.

70. Mr Mitchell interviewed Mr Finn as part of his investigation on 28 April 2021

[527-530] when he explained that he felt that Mr Jibara’s comments [529]:

“regarding AR’s heritage…was said with no malice; I could genuinely see SJ

was trying to express what he considered to be the right words for how AR
can come across, to someone such as myself who was unfamiliar with
different cultures in the team…I didn’t consider it as a concern at the time as it
wasn’t within the scope of my investigation.”

Whereas, as Mr Finn went on to say, he was “taken aback” by some of the

comments the claimant made about Mr Kadhum and about which “he had
grave concerns” because these allegations had already been investigated.
19
 Case Nos: 2206705/2021 & 2206709/2021
Notably, Mr Dodds had interviewed Mr Dodds the day before [456-462] when
he confirmed that he had viewed Mr Jibara’s testimony differently [461]:

“I appreciate that AR may have been unhappy about the way that SJ had
described his character…I did discuss those comments with LM and she was
going to speak with management / HR to say this language isn’t acceptable. I
didn’t feel it was my place as the hearing manager to look into whether what
that person was doing would cause offence…”

71. The claimant subsequently asked to meet Mr Mitchell to discuss his

complaints about the statements made by Mr Jibara and Ms Hasan when he
explained: “There are cultural references in their statements that he needs to
be aware of” [501]. He wrote again to request that his allegations of race
discrimination were investigated by someone who had specific training to
deal with race cases. Ms Zaidi responded on 7 May 2021 [498-499] to
confirm that Mr Mitchell was an experienced hearing manager who had
completed all the required training and dealt with a “broad range of complex
cases” although she failed to clarify that this was the first time he had
investigated an allegation of race discrimination. The claimant emailed Ms
Zaidi again, on 18 and 20 May, [531-534] to provide further information in
relation to use of the word ‘Bedouin’, to be forwarded to Mr Mitchell, when he
referred to a ”diplomatic crisis” between Saudi Arabia and Lebanon which he
said had arisen from the use of the word ‘Bedouin’, and explained:

“This explains what Bedouin means in Arab culture. An[d] this is the meaning
SJ wanted to convey when he called me a Bedouin his witness statement. It is
the most degrading insult one can receive. It is racist and dehumanising. It
actually emanates from people who think they are superior to other people just
because they belong to a particular ethnicity or given country.”

72. In the meantime, Mr Jibara was informed about the claimant’s complaint, on
6 May 2021 [464]. The next day, he was sent a copy of the record of his
interview with Mr Finn together with a summary of the two allegations that the
claimant had made against him [484-490] i.e. that he had made racist and
degrading comments (in respect of the same comments ascribed to Mr
Jibara which are the subject of this claim), and had been dishonest in his
statement in support of the managers. We accept Mr Jibara’s evidence that
this was the first time he read the record of this interview and he therefore did
so in the full knowledge of the claimant’s complaints against him.

73. Mr Jibara wrote to Ida Lucedarska-Slack, HR Business Partner, on 10 May

2021 [515] seeking advice, explaining that he was surprised by the claimant’s
allegations, he felt like a victim and his goodwill was being used against him.
He sent two further emails to Ms Lucedarska-Slack the next day [513-514]. In
the first of these emails, Mr Jibara explained:

“I feel that feel that this situation has been mishandled and misunderstood.
The summary of my statement has been gathered in a way that is taken out of
context and didn't catch its connotations within its cultural context. When I was
referring to cultural differences I did that not with an offensive intention or
talking about essential characters, but to explain that we need to understand
those cultural differences to understand people's behaviours. When I said this
I was thinking back to my own encounters and how my own Iraqi culture for
example shapes my own interactions and behaviours which I assumed it very
similar with the Algerian culture. This statement was not made in a way that
20
 Case Nos: 2206705/2021 & 2206709/2021
intended any disrespect to anyone's culture, I was only considering the
possible factors that the other should take it in consideration when they justify
our behaviour; me or my colleague Ahmed.”

He noted that English was not his first language (and gave the single
example of using the “wrong descriptive” word of nervous instead of angry),
the meeting with Mr Finn was “daunting and anxiety inducing” owing to
previous traumatic experiences. Although he also stated that his statement
“was very concise and doesn’t reflect clearly what I have said”, as Mr Jibara
confirmed in the second email he sent that day,

“I couldn't explain some ideas in more details and examples that clarify its
connotations within my cultural context made It appears as ambiguous and out
of context”.

He therefore appeared to accept that he had not provided more detail or

greater clarity or context to the evidence he had given, as had been
recorded. In his first email, Mr Jibara also explained that owing to his
workload he had not seen Mr Finn’s email inviting him to make any
amendments to the record and he would have made changes to “rectify the
situation” if he had had the opportunity. However, in the same email, Mr
Jibara stated that following the fact-finding interview he felt “I had finished my
role by giving an honest and truthful testimony”. This is consistent with our
finding above that Mr Jibara was not immediately concerned by what he had
conveyed to Mr Finn at this interview. Mr Jibara also explained that he had
understood that his statement would remain confidential, which we have
found was his genuinely held belief at the time.

74. Mr Mitchell interviewed Mr Jibara on 17 May 2021 when Ms Zaidi was again
in attendance [568-571]. Mr Jibara said that he was “totally surprised” by the
claimant’s complaint, he felt they had worked well together as colleagues and
he respected the claimant as a friend and colleague. He did not resile from
the words which were ascribed to him when he was interviewed by Mr Finn
but added the following details:

“I would like to clarify that all the words I had used to describe my colleague
AR is applied on me and totally came from my personal experience and I
describe myself with them. We share the same character and culture…When I
say character I didn't mean that these are essential or natural characteristics
that differentiate between people. But all of us, as individuals, go through
different experiences inside our societies and cultures that deeply affects our
character. When I mentioned violence in my previous testimony I would like to
clarify that I came from an Iraqi origin, he also came from a similar background
and there are a lot of similarities as we come from a places where people
have been traumatised due to war. In Algeria there was the long war for
independence where they lost more than a million people, or there is a lot of
violence… in the 90's which affects society. So we come from traumatised
people. Sometimes my friends say you are shouting (…I mean talking in high
voice and this is what I meant to say last time) when I talk about some things
emotionally and enthusiastically or when use a sharp style to express what I
think is the truth without any compromise. I said to them that's my character
and I am not shouting and I don't mean to offend anybody. AR also expressed
himself in the same way. Some other people don't understand that.”

When Mr Mitchell asked him to explain the offending paragraph in his

21
 Case Nos: 2206705/2021 & 2206709/2021
statement, Mr Jibara identified the factors which he believed had led to his
words being misunderstood:

“Reading it back I felt it got lost In translation. A lot of phrases look very brief
and has been gathered in a way that is taken out of context, and it didn't catch
its connotations within its cultural context. That happened due to two factors:
one is personal and the other Is related to cultural context. The personal one:
English is not my first language. I am trying to think in Arabic and translate to
English so sometimes it's not the exact word. For this reason I may have used
the wrong descriptive words in my statement, for example using the word
nervous instead of angry…Although I was emailed with an opportunity to
make amendments, I did not see that email as I was too busy focusing on my
own work and planning the agenda of daily work and the overload of tasks I
had to manage, due to a staff shortage. Therefore, I lost the opportunity to
review my testimony to correct it. The other factor is there is no understanding
to the cultural context. Some of my words were out of context and didn't catch
its connotations within its cultural context.”

In respect of his use of the words ‘Bedouin character’, which Mr Jibara did
not deny using, he explained:

“I use all these description in a positive way (and they are positive in my
culture to describe someone that he have Bedouin character so he is free,
independent, generous and honourable and expresses himself in a truthful
way and he said the truth even in a very sharp style. I think because I am from
an Iraqi origin that the Algerian and Iraqi people are very close to each other
and they have gone through the same experiences…So when I am talking
about him I am talking about myself too. I find my statement has gone into a
different context…I want to clarify that there are two sides of my testimony: the
first is objective which related to what I have seen or remember from that
meeting (where I said exactly what I had remembered objectively without any
favouritism or partiality. The second part is subjective which related to the
interpretation (totally personal interpretation and derived from personal
experience) I tried through it to find a compromise to solve the problem
peacefully between the two by my emphasis on the cultural differences as
pretext to explain what happened and to give our colleague AR a chance to
say that he didn't mean to offend or disrespect anyone with his angry style to
express his objection or complaint. But unfortunately he misunderstood my
points and my motives.”

75. Mr Mitchell interviewed Mr Saber and Dr Elashiry on 14 and 15 June 2021,

respectively. They were both asked: “If someone described AR as a Bedouin
character, what would you understand from that?” Mr Saber replied [552]:

“This has very negative connotations. It has a racist aspect, it means not
civilised. It means his behaviour is fishy and anti-social and not [a] law-abiding
person”.

Dr Elashiry’s response was “You are telling people I am not civilised and [it]
has very bad connotations” [558]. Notably, in putting this question to these
witnesses, Mr Mitchell did not disclose any other details about the offending
paragraph in Mr Jibara’s statement. Although we do not find that this made
any difference to the outcome of the investigation, it had the capacity to do
so.

22
 Case Nos: 2206705/2021 & 2206709/2021
Mr Mitchell’s grievance outcome decision dated 12 July 2021

76. Mr Mitchell wrote to the claimant on 12 July 2021 to confirm the grievance
outcome [576-594]. He listed the claimant’s complaints against Mr Kadhum,
Mr Yehia, Ms Hasan and Mr Jibara, which in respect of the latter was made
in the following terms:

“For making racist and degrading comments towards you and for ‘malicious
lies’ in his statement which he provided in August 2020”

The letter recited the definitions of bullying and harassment set out in the
Anti-Bullying and Harassment Policy. The definition of harassment mirrored
much of the statutory definition of harassment [579]:

“…unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic…the

conduct has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity or creating an
intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for that
individual”

Mr Mitchell confirmed that he had found no case to answer in respect of any

of the claimant’s grievances, including against Mr Jibara in relation to which,
he wrote [579]:

“Although I appreciate the hurt and upset that may have been caused when
you read the statements from the pre-disciplinary investigation, having spoken
to Saffa, I do not believe there is a case to answer…however, I will be making
some detailed recommendations as I do believe that some of the language
use in those meeting was not acceptable.”

He then went on to provide some further detail [591]:

“I can see why this statement may have been upsetting for you to read and I
absolutely agree that these comments are not acceptable. To investigate this
point I have spoken with Jamie Dodds (Disciplinary Manager), Matt and Saffa.
Jamie acknowledged that this language was not acceptable and that he had
asked for this to be addressed via feedback to Saffa.

Mr Mitchell explained that it was unlikely that this feedback had been
communicated to Mr Jibara owing to the absence of the HR case manager.
He apologised for this and confirmed that he would making his own
recommendations as part of the grievance outcome, and thanked the
claimant for raising this issue with him. Mr Mitchell referred to Mr Finn’s
statement, Mr Jibara’s evidence that “when he was describing your
experiences, he was describing his own experiences” and that “he absolutely
respects you as a colleague and you cooperate and work well together”. He
also referred to the evidence given by Mr Saber and Dr Elashiry that the
words ‘Bedouin character’ had negative connotations. Mr Mitchell concluded:

“Having reflected on my investigations, I can see why Saffa’s witness

statements may have been taken as upsetting, hurtful and offensive to you
and I feel there are learnings and recommendations that I will be making on
the basis that this type of language is not acceptable. However, when
considering these comments, I have reflected back on Saffa’s intent with these
comments, and I do not believe that he meant these comments in a harmful or
malicious way but that he used incorrect and unacceptable language in his
23
 Case Nos: 2206705/2021 & 2206709/2021
attempt to explain the cultural and background aspects.”

77. Notably, when Mr Mitchell wrote to Mr Jibara to confirm this outcome [622-
625], he emphasised that although he had not found that there was a case to
answer,

“…I did find that your communications and the language you used in your
August 2020 statement was a concern and I would like these concerns to be
addressed and therefore I will be making some recommendations around
these. I feel this is necessary as I don't believe you intended any harm
however such comments could lead to disciplinary action taken against you in
future….

Reading this statement, I can see why this may have been upsetting for
Ahmed and I agree that these comments are not acceptable…Jamie [Dodds]
acknowledged that this language was not acceptable…

Having reflected on my investigation, I can see why Ahmed is upset and

offended when reading back your statement. It has been a very difficult
decision to make as a Grievance Hearing Manager as I can see the extent to
which this may be upsetting for Ahmed.

It is never acceptable to make negative comments based on someone's

background / race and this has been deeply concerning for me as this is an
extremely serious matter which can lead to further disciplinary action.
However, when I met with you, I did not believe you meant any malice by
these comments. When considering these comments, I have reflected on your
intent which you described in our meeting and I do not believe that you meant
these comments in a harmful way but that you used incorrect and
unacceptable language in your attempt to explain Ahmed's culture and
background.

On this basis, there is no case to answer. It is important that this does not
happen again.”

Mr Mitchell recommended that Mr Jibara and the claimant engaged in

mediation and that Mr Jibara completed an online training module in
unconscious bias awareness.

78. We find that the following is evident from these outcome letters: firstly, Mr
Mitchell concluded that Mr Jibara had used the words ascribed to him which
the claimant complained were racist and degrading; secondly, he found that
they were negative comments which were related to the claimant’s race;
thirdly, he understood why the claimant had found these comments
upsetting, hurtful and offensive and not acceptable; fourthly, he concluded
that this did not amount to harassment because he found that Mr Jibara had
not intended to harm or cause offence. Mr Mitchell had therefore treated his
findings on Mr Jibara’s intention as dispositive of whether there had been
harassment.

79. We find that this was a finely balanced decision for Mr Mitchell, as his letter
to Mr Jibara suggested (when he told him that it had been a very difficult
decision to make) and, as he reflected, when he was interviewed during the
investigation into the claimant’s subsequent grievance appeal, although he
had not found there to have been any malice in relation to the use of
‘Bedouin’ “I could accept that a different hearing manager might have felt
24
 Case Nos: 2206705/2021 & 2206709/2021
differently on that point” [692].

80. Mr Mitchell wrote to the claimant on the same date to confirm the outcome of
his disciplinary appeal [596-612]. Although he did not uphold the claimant’s
appeal, he overturned the second allegation which Mr Dodds had upheld
which related to the staff survey meeting on the basis that new information
had become available to him during his investigation i.e. the testimony of Mr
Saber and Dr Elashiry. As his letter explained, having considered the original
statements and the additional ones he had obtained, Mr Mitchell was:

“sufficiently concerned about the discrepancies between all witness statements

that I have decided to overturn point 2 of the disciplinary outcome”.

In oral evidence, Mr Mitchell said that he also relied on Mr Jibara’s testimony

to overturn Mr Dodds’ finding on this allegation. We find that Mr Mitchell has
overstated the weight he attached to Mr Jibara’s statement in this regard
because not only did he fail to refer to this in his detailed outcome letter but it
is clear from this letter that the reason for his decision was the
inconsistencies between the extant witness statements and the additional
evidence he obtained from Mr Saber and Dr Elashiry; which was something
he also underlined when he was interviewed during the grievance appeal
investigation when he recommended that all of the claimant’s witnesses were
interviewed [691]:

“I recommend you speak to all of them too, he has a fair point about the
balance. We did get a very different version of events when we talked to SJ
and ME.”

It is therefore likely that had these witnesses been interviewed earlier the
second allegation which centred on the claimant’s conduct during the staff
survey meeting would not have proceeded (at the fact-finding stage) or been
upheld (at the disciplinary stage). However, in the event, Mr Dodds’ failure to
interview Mr Saber and Dr Elashiry compounded their initial omission by Mr
Finn. In respect of Mr Finn, Mr Mitchell agreed that it was part of his role as
case manager at the fact-finding stage to make observations about the
evidence he heard and he accepted Mr Finn’s explanation for not taking
issue with Mr Jibara’s language notwithstanding that both he and Mr Dodds
found it unacceptable. Mr Mitchell concluded that the original disciplinary
sanction would stand as it was warranted by the remaining allegation he had
upheld. We accept that the claimant continued to understand that this was a
final written warning.

81. The claimant wrote to complain about these outcomes on the same date
when he complained “I am devastated by this brutal injustice…[and]
humiliation” [618] and appealed several grievance appeals, including in
relation to Mr Jibara’s statement, when he wrote [620]:

“Justin dismissed my claim against witnesses who made racist and degrading
comments towards me in their written statements just because he thought it
was fine. My witnesses explained to him that the word Bedouin they used to
insult me means 'uncivilised' in Arabic. I have also sent him a link of a news
story about a Lebanese minister who was sacked because he used the same
word Bedouin to describe a Saudi TV commentator. The incident triggered a
diplomatic crisis between the two counties. Despite that Justin saw it was fine

25
 Case Nos: 2206705/2021 & 2206709/2021
they call me uncivilised in a formal proceedings. They did not only call me
uncivilised. They said all Algerian people were uncivilised and violent
according to them. This was fine for Justin. It is OK for the to call my people
uncivilised and violent. They can insult me and make racist and degrading
comments towards me. For me they cannot. It is racism. This is why I am
appealing against this insulting outcome…Matt Finn also condoned racist and
degrading comments made towards me by witnesses…”

In another email sent on the same date [626], the claimant expressed the
fear that his managers were intent of bringing another grievance against him
to “get rid” of him and queried what protection he had if the grievance
process was “always in their favour”.

82. On 15 July 2022, Dr Elashiry emailed Mr Jibara in Arabic [632]. He agreed

that the certified English translation of his email which was in the bundle
[1051] was accurate. In this email, Dr Elashiry explained that he had spoken
to the claimant the day before (emphasis added):

Unfortunately, he is exceedingly angry especially after confirmation of the final

warning to him and so he will be vulnerable to dismissal. He believes your
testimony is the cause of the confirmation…he expressed his readiness to
forgive on condition that you write that you have revoked your testimony to
HR…He says that what concerns him is not the description of him being a
Bedouin, but the testimony itself which he says contained fabrications….

In respect of the underlined part of this email, we accept Dr Elashiry’s

evidence that he had meant to convey that the claimant was not only
concerned with Mr Jibara’s description of him. This is consistent with the
written statements provided by Dr Elashiry and Mr Saber which were in the
bundle [1017-1018] that they both approached Mr Jibara to explore mediation
in July 2021 and conveyed that the claimant would agree not to escalate his
complaint if Mr Jibara agreed to apologise for making “racist and derogatory”
comments and withdraw his statement. This is also consistent with the
claimant’s evidence, which we accept, that he continued to be offended by
the language which Mr Jibara’s had used (which was not limited to the use of
the word ‘Bedouin’), as the claimant’s contemporaneous emails made clear.
We find that Dr Elashiry was acting in good faith to broker the peace and it is
likely that the claimant wanted Mr Jibara to retract his statement in order to
safeguard his employment, as he understood that he was on a final written
warning and feared further complaints from his managers and the
repercussions of the same on his ongoing employment with the second
respondent.

Grievance appeal

83. The claimant’s grievance appeal was considered by Steph Marshall, Head of
Journalism, and hearing manager, and Kerstie Skeaping, an external expert.
They were joint decision-makers. They interviewed the claimant on 18
August 2021 when he explained why he felt what Mr Jibara had said was
racist and degrading [711]:

“Before we mention AR's character and the fact he is from Algeria. There is
violence behind him [it]. So because I am Algerian I am violent that's what he
says. He said I have a Bedouin character which means uncivilised people who
can't settle in an organised society. So he's saying Algerians are violent and
26
 Case Nos: 2206705/2021 & 2206709/2021
are Bedouin.”

84. A first draft of the appeal outcome letter was sent by Ms Skeaping to Ms
Marshall and Mary Longthorne, HR Case Manager, on 5 October 2021 [770-
775], which set out their decision to partially uphold the claimant’s appeal in
relation to Mr Jibara and Mr Kadhum but not Mr Finn, having found [772]:

“…We do consider that you have been [sic] in a degrading, hostile and racist
manner by MK and SJ. We do not find that Matt Finn acted inappropriately or
in a discriminatory manner towards you...”

In relation to Mr Jibara, they concluded that he [773-774]:

“…would have been aware that the use of this word was insulting and that he
did intend to insult you when he used it. We find his behaviour to have been
completely disrespectful and bullying…Justin was wrong to reject this element
of your appeal…”

In coming to this conclusion, they relied on their interviews with the claimant,
Dr Elashiry and Mr Saber. As is evident, they focused on Mr Jibara’s
intention, however, they failed to interview him, which was an important
omission. In her covering email with which this draft letter was sent, Ms
Skeaping wrote: “Am I on the right track here - these certainly are my views
and I think they reflect Steph's.” Ms Marshall subsequently wrote to confirm
“this looks good to me” [776]. They both asked Ms Longthorne to focus on
“recommendations” or “next steps” because as Ms Marshall explained:

“We need to be clear here that we can't just keep batting this backwards and
forwards because it doesn't solve anything and we are not solving the wider
issues of this department.”

85. Ms Longthorne sent a revised draft outcome letter [782-786] to which Ms

Skeaping responded [787] that she was concerned that this had
“considerably watered down” their findings which was something she and Ms
Marshall had anticipated, that they “had serious concerns” about the
treatment of the claimant and its impact on his wellbeing. The revisions to
this draft were made by Ms O’Sullivan with comments, which included, in
relation to the finding that Mr Jibara had intended to insult the claimant: “It
isn’t about intent is it? It is about how it made Ahmed feel??” Although Ms
O’Sullivan was right to emphasise the importance of the effect that Mr
Jibara’s words had had on the claimant, the question of intent remained a
relevant though distinct issue.

86. On 28 October 2021, Ms Longthorne forwarded an email she had received

from Richard Lake, HR Business Partner, headed ‘Cultural Context’ [794]
which included what she described as a statement which Mr Jibara had
provided “as part of another process which explains his comments”. This
appeared to be a slightly re-edited version of Mr Jibara’s testimony to Mr
Mitchell. By this date, a decision had been made to interview Mr Jibara.

87. Mr Jibara was interviewed on 3 November 2021. He subsequently made

extensive annotations to the second respondent’s draft record of this
interview [835-841] which included additional context, in which he focused on
what he had meant by ‘Bedouin’ and ‘Bedouin character’; he declined to
27
 Case Nos: 2206705/2021 & 2206709/2021
acknowledge that it could be perceived as negative.

88. In the meantime, Ms Longthorne took steps to assist the panel in relation to
the use of ‘Bedouin’. She wrote to Mr Lake on 5 November [823] to explore
whether it was possible to obtain a definitive view from an Iraqi and Algerian
perspective. In his reply, Mr Lake provided a paraphrased commentary he
had obtained from an “Iraqi employee” before offering how own view [821]:

“…based on the above, the way Safaa used the word Bedouin was not an
intended insult – I feel intention is the key here because we know AR took
insult and Safaa has/will apologise for any insult he may have caused that he
didn't mean.”

Ms Longthorne replied to clarify the crux of what the panel was grappling
with, which gave greater weight to the effect on the claimant [820]:

“They understand Safaa's explanation but it's not just about whether Safaa
meant it as an insult. They want to know whether in Algerian [sic], it is
offensive or if it was only Ahmed's interpretation. As you say below some
people do see it as offensive, an Iraqi may not feel insulted but would an
Algerian? They want to establish if it was reasonable for Ahmed to find it
disrespectful and would Safaa know that it could be taken as an offensive
word, by anyone and in particular an Algerian.”

After Mr Lake forwarded commentary he had obtained from a “non-Iraqi”

colleague, he and Ms Longthorne agreed that the issue was not clear-cut,
when Mr Long opined that there were too many cultural nuances for the
panel to determine whether the word should have been taken as being
disrespectful, which was one of the comments that Ms Longthorne
highlighted when she forwarded this correspondence to Ms Marshall and Ms
Skeaping.

89. The panel decided ultimately not to uphold the claimant’s grievance in
respect of Mr Jibara’s comments, having concluded, following their interview
with him, the additional information which Mr Lake had provided, that Mr
Jibara had not intentionally insulted the claimant when he used the word
‘Bedouin’. They did so, having also accepted that the claimant had found this
term to be racist and degrading and that it could have both negative and
positive connotations. Once again, the focus was on Mr Jibara’s intention and
also of the use of the word ‘Bedouin’ divorced from the context in which Mr
Jibara had used it to describe the claimant’s conduct towards Mr Kadhum
and the reference to the claimant’s Algerian heritage. The claimant received
the grievance appeal outcome on 8 December 2021 [867-874].

Conclusions

The allegation against Mr Jibara

90. We find that Mr Jibara racially harassed the claimant, as alleged. As we have
found, the impugned words used by Mr Jibara during his interview with Mr
Finn were patently related to the claimant’s race. They were unwanted. We
have found that Mr Jibara did not intend to harass the claimant as he
genuinely understood that his comments would not be disclosed to the

28
 Case Nos: 2206705/2021 & 2206709/2021
claimant when he made them. However, we do find that the impugned words
had the proscribed effect on the claimant, and taking into account all the
other circumstances in the case, it was objectively reasonable for this
conduct to have had that effect on the claimant:

(1) Although we find that the claimant’s reaction to the impugned words
cannot be divorced entirely from his firmly held view that Mr Jibara had
given false evidence in the service of a plot with his managers to
remove him (which was something which clearly exercised and
distressed the claimant), we find that the claimant perceived that these
words violated his dignity, and created a degrading, humiliating and/or
offensive environment for him, as is clear from the many statements
he made to this effect which we have set out above.
(2) We have found that the words used by Mr Jibara were derogatory,
described conduct which was potentially problematic and related this
conduct to the claimant’s Algerian nationality and Bedouin character.
Notably, Mr Dodds and Mr Mitchell agreed that the language used was
unacceptable and the latter understood why it had upset, hurt and
offended the claimant.
(3) We do not find that the claimant was being hypersensitive or was
unreasonably offended notwithstanding that these comments were not
made directly to him.

The allegation against Mr Mitchell

91. We do not find that Mr Mitchell racially harassed or discriminated against the
claimant, as alleged. We find that Mr Mitchell rejected the claimant’s
grievance against Mr Jibara for reasons which were neither because of nor
related to the claimant’s race: firstly, Mr Mitchell was satisfied that the term
‘Bedouin’ was ambiguous, having both negative and positive connotations;
secondly, Mr Mitchell accepted Mr Jibara’s evidence that his intentions were
entirely benign in that he was attempting, using his own personal experience,
to place the claimant’s conduct in a wider cultural context. Although we find
that Mr Mitchell placed too much weight on Mr Jibara’s intention and his
overall conclusion is difficult to reconcile with the other findings he made, we
do not find that this revealed a pro-Iraqi and anti-Algerian bias, as the
claimant alleges, and nor we do find that a hypothetical complainant would
have been treated any differently in the same circumstances.

92. Further, although we have outlined above the following failings we do not
draw any adverse inferences from them in respect of the decision made by
Mr Mitchell:

(1) Firstly, it is striking that at every turn, the second respondent’s

managers and HR advisers failed to apply the correct definition of
harassment as set out in their own policy (with the possible exception
of Ms Longthorne). We find that it is also illustrative that Mr Dodds was
similarly focused on the claimant’s intention (to his benefit) when he
decided not to uphold the allegation that the claimant had made

29
 Case Nos: 2206705/2021 & 2206709/2021
derogatory or malicious comments about Mr Kadhum, albeit that this
allegation was not explicitly framed as harassment. To the extent that
Mr Mitchell relied on HR advice when he came to his own decision, we
therefore conclude that he would have taken the same approach in
focusing on intention to a hypothetical comparator. Although this
approach was flawed it had nothing whatsoever to do with the
claimant’s race.
(2) Secondly, Mr Finn failed to consider the import of Mr Jibara’s
comments, whereas he was moved to add a further allegation against
the claimant for words he used during the same fact-finding
investigation.
(3) Thirdly, Mr Dodds failed to heed HR advice to consider whether Mr
Jibara’s comments were discriminatory notwithstanding that, unlike Mr
Finn (and like Mr Mitchell), he found them to be unacceptable; and no
steps were taken at this stage to address these comments. This was
rectified by the time of Mr Mitchell’s involvement at the grievance
stage.
(4) Fourthly, both Mr Finn and Mr Dodds failed to interview key witnesses
whose testimony led Mr Mitchell to overturn one of the allegations
which Mr Dodds had upheld.
(5) Fifthly, there was an initial delay in the second respondent agreeing to
and confirming that the claimant’s allegations of race discrimination
would be investigated on their own terms. This was unrelated to Mr
Mitchell’s decision.
(6) Sixthly, although we have found that it is unlikely to have made any
difference to the outcome of his investigation, Mr Mitchell questioned
Mr Saber and Dr Elashiry about the word ‘Bedouin’ divorced from the
context in which Mr Jibara had used this word. We would add that it is
clear from his investigation and outcome letter that Mr Mitchell
considered all the words which the claimant had complained about,
and not just the use of the term ‘Bedouin’.
(7) Seventhly, the second respondent continued, at the grievance appeal
stage, to place too great an emphasis on the meaning of the term
‘Bedouin’, although this was a highly relevant consideration, and failed
to give sufficient weight to the impact of the impugned words on the
claimant. This was unrelated to Mr Mitchell’s decision.

Remedy

93. A preliminary hearing will be held to list a remedy hearing and make any
necessary case management orders.

94. Finally, I would like to apologise to the parties for the lengthy delay in
promulgating this judgment.

30
Case Nos: 2206705/2021 & 2206709/2021

_____________________________
Employment Judge Khan

31.01.2024

REASONS SENT TO THE PARTIES ON

31/01/2024

OLU

FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE

31