In Khan v Adidas UK Ltd, as part of the disciplinary proceedings against Khan (K) for misconduct, which included inappropriate provocative/antagonistic behaviour towards colleagues, K was sent notes of the investigatory interviews which included an interview with Ms Baida (B) who is of Nepalese Hindu origin. When asked to comment on K’s behaviour towards women, B had said: “I think because he’s from a Muslim country, so where women get treated badly.” As to his behaviour in general, B said “you can’t make a dog’s tail straight”, which she clarified, with prompting, as meaning “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks”.

The ET rejected K’s claims of harassment related to religion and age brought under S.26 of the Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010). The ET found that K was keen to seize upon the remarks to point the finger at his colleagues to deflect attention from his own conduct which included causing several female colleagues to be reduced to tears and to refuse to work with him anymore.

The ET found that while the remark referring to K being from a Muslim country is capable of being offensive, and could be seen as relying on negative stereotyping, the context is key. B’s remarks were not made directly to K, but during a meeting which B had been assured was confidential and she was told to be open and honest. Her comments were based on personal experience having grown up in a region with a large Muslim population, where women were not necessarily treated well, and were not simply a repetition of a negative stereotype. Applying S.26(4) EA 2010, then in the circumstances, including K’s perception (see above), the remark could not reasonably be considered as harassment.

The ET also decided that the phrase “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks” was not related to age in the context it was used. B had used it to explain why K would not be able to change his behaviour. Even if it had been related to age then it would not be reasonable to view it as harassment under the provisions of S.26 (4) EA 2010, as it fell into the category of ‘hypersensitivity’ as described by the EAT in Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal.

Content

 The aim of this update is to provide summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. In particular, where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented by the parties and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Click on the links provided to access full details. If no link is provided, contact us for further details.  Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, SM&B cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.