Cases2219387/2024

Claimant v nGAGE Talent UK Employees Limited

13 August 2025Before Employment Judge NicolleLondon Centralin person

Outcome

Partly successful

Individual claims

Harassment(religion)succeeded

The tribunal found that the respondent's conduct of asking the claimant to remove his LinkedIn post regarding an Islamophobic message and threatening him with 'consequences' (disciplinary action up to dismissal) was unwanted conduct related to his Muslim faith. The conduct created an intimidating and hostile environment for the claimant. The tribunal applied the lower threshold for harassment under s.26 EqA (conduct 'related to' rather than 'because of' the protected characteristic) and found the respondent had not rebutted the inference that the conduct was related to the claimant's religion.

Harassment(religion)failed

The claim regarding not being permitted to record meetings on 5 and 6 August 2024 failed. The tribunal found no grounds to infer this was related to the claimant's religion, accepting the respondent's evidence that this was a generic policy applied regardless of any protected characteristic.

Harassment(religion)failed

The claim regarding being told to change his LinkedIn profile to remove the link to the respondent (if unwilling to remove the post) failed. While the tribunal found grounds to infer this related to his religion, they accepted the respondent's rebuttal that this was standard practice for personal opinions on social media and the claimant had agreed to the solution (adding a disclaimer).

Direct Discrimination(religion)not determined

The tribunal found it unnecessary to consider the s.13 direct discrimination claim given their finding on harassment under s.26, as these are mutually exclusive under s.212 EqA. However, they noted that had it been necessary to consider, it would have failed.

Direct Discrimination(race)failed

The claimant effectively disengaged from his race discrimination claim, focusing almost entirely on religion. The tribunal noted that for completeness, the same outcome would have applied to the race claim as applied to the religion claim.

Constructive Dismissalwithdrawn

Dismissed on withdrawal at a case management hearing on 19 September 2024

Unlawful Deduction from Wageswithdrawn

Dismissed on withdrawal at a case management hearing on 19 September 2024

Facts

The claimant, a high-performing Divisional Manager who identifies as Muslim and Arab, responded to an Islamophobic LinkedIn post by another recruitment consultant on 5 August 2024. His response warned recruitment consultants not to work with the individual. His managing director asked him to remove the post or face 'consequences' (potential disciplinary action/dismissal). After initially refusing, the claimant agreed on 7 August 2024 to add a disclaimer stating the views were personal and did not represent his employer. The respondent was on notice of the claimant's likely Muslim faith given his Iraqi background and his email of 5 August 2024 expressing sensitivity to Islamophobic content.

Decision

The tribunal found the respondent committed harassment related to religion under s.26 EqA by asking the claimant to remove his LinkedIn post and threatening 'consequences'. The conduct created an intimidating and hostile environment. The claimant had legitimate grounds to challenge the Islamophobic post and had not overstepped reasonable boundaries. However, claims regarding not being able to record meetings and being required to change his profile link failed. Remedy (likely limited to injury to feelings) to be determined at a further hearing.

Practical note

Employers requiring employees to remove social media posts criticising Islamophobic content may commit religious harassment even if motivated by commercial/reputational concerns, particularly where the employee's expression is protected under ECHR Articles 9 and 10 and does not constitute unreasonable manifestation of belief.

Legal authorities cited

Igen v Wong [2005] ICR 931Tees Esk Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust v Aslam & Anor [2020] IRLR 495Higgs v Farmor's School [2025] EWCA Civ 109Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2014] AC 700Page v NHS Trust Development Authority [2021] EWCA Civ 254Chief Constable of West Yorkshire v Khan [2001] ICR 1065Carozzi v University of Hertfordshire [2024] EAT 169General Municipal and Boilermakers Union v Henderson [2015] IRLR 451Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board v Hughes [2013] EAT 0179/13Warby v Wunda Group Plc [2012] 1 WLUK 610Redfern v United Kingdom [2012] ECHR 1878Nagarajan v London Regional Transport [2000] 1 AC 501Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal [2009] ICR 724Madarassy v Nomura International Plc [2007] ICR 867

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.26Equality Act 2010 s.13Equality Act 2010 s.212Human Rights Act 1998 s.3(1)ECHR Article 9ECHR Article 10ECHR Article 17

Case details

Case number
2219387/2024
Decision date
13 August 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
4
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
professional services
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Divisional Manager
Salary band
£100,000+

Claimant representation

Represented
No