Religious Discrimination at Work: £20,000 Victory for Council Worker Accused of “Suddenly Becoming a Muslim”

In Mr S Molla v London Borough of Hackney, a council worker was subject to workplace harassment and religious discrimination at work. The East London Tribunal awarded Sahabuddin Molla £20,000 after a manager accused him of “suddenly becoming a Muslim” and refused to implement occupational health recommendations due to his religious beliefs.

In this article, we consider the facts of the case and the judgment of the East London Tribunal.

If you believe that you have suffered religious discrimination at work or workplace harassment related to your religion, contact Redmans Solicitors for advice. Our employment law specialists have considerable experience in handling discrimination claims and will be able to assist you in bringing a claim.

To arrange an initial consultation, either:

  • Call us on 020 3397 3603; or
  • Complete our Online Form.

The Facts of Mr Sahabuddin Molla v London Borough of Hackney

Scheme Manager Accused of “Planned Psychological Torture” in Religious Discrimination at Work Case

Sahabuddin Molla (the claimant) worked as a Care Support Worker for the London Borough of Hackney (the respondent). He was based at Century Court, a residential facility for those needing domiciliary support. The claimant’s permanent employment with the respondent commenced in December 2013. The claimant reported to a Team Leader, who in turn reported to the Scheme Manager, Keith Suckram.

The claimant is a Muslim of South Asian ethnicity. From early 2017 onwards, the claimant made multiple complaints internally of bad and/or unequal treatment in his role. On various occasions, he complained of unequal treatment in an internal recruitment process. He also accused Mr Suckram of misconduct, victimisation, and abuse, and alleged that Mr Suckram’s treatment of him constituted “planned psychological torture”.

In early 2019, the claimant requested permission to record Mr Suckram for evidence of his conduct. At that point, the claimant described Mr Suckram’s behaviour as “discriminatory and torturous”. The claimant’s request was denied but he was invited to submit a grievance, which he did in October 2019.

Sahabuddin Molla’s Manager Failed to Implement Occupational Health Recommendations

From 23 August 2019 to 1 October 2019, the claimant was signed off work due to “occupational stress”. He returned on 2 October but was signed off again on 7 October with tuberculosis. At that time, the claimant was also suffering from ongoing symptoms from a former road traffic accident.

The claimant was then referred to occupational health with respect to these issues. He attended an occupational health assessment on 31 October 2019 and an occupational health report was prepared.

The occupational health report advised that the claimant was fit for work but with reasonable adjustments. A phased return to work was recommended, with the claimant working half his contracted hours for two weeks before returning to his usual hours. Lighter duties were also recommended due to the road traffic accident symptoms.

The claimant returned to work on 8 November 2019. He attended a Return-to-Work meeting with Mr Suckram, during which the occupational health report was discussed. Mr Suckram stated that the report did not indicate what constituted “lighter duties” and as such the claimant’s duties were not adjusted. He also told the claimant that a phased return to work would be unnecessary as the claimant only worked 18 hours per week.

During the Return-to-Work meeting, the claimant and Mr Suckram also discussed the claimant’s various former complaints about Mr Suckram’s behaviour. The claimant confirmed feeling not being treated equally to other workers, which was religious discrimination. Mr Suckram said that notes on these allegations would be typed up after the meeting, although this never happened.

Sahabuddin Molla Accuses Manager of Making Discriminatory Comments

Immediately following the Return-to-Work meeting, the claimant emailed Frances Harve, a Locality Manager. He described aspects of the meeting, stating that Mr Suckram had decided to disregard the occupational health recommendations. The email also described an “insulting comment about religion” made by Mr Suckram during the meeting.

The claimant’s email stated: “Upon my request to him not to give me shifts on Fridays as I have to go to the Mosque for Friday prayers, he made the comment ‘seems you suddenly became a Muslim’ and refused to consider my request rather asked me to apply for this concession from the HR.”

In December 2019, the claimant repeated his allegation against Mr Suckram in an email to Mr Suckram. He stated that the comment had been “derogatory and an Islamophobic attack on his faith”. By return email, Mr Suckram denied having made any such comment. However, no contemporaneous notes of the meeting were ever produced. It does not appear that Ms Harve took any further action with respect to the claimant’s complaints.

In September 2021, the claimant brought multiple claims against the respondent in the East London Tribunal. These included allegations of direct religious discrimination, workplace harassment related to religion, and victimisation.

The Tribunal’s Ruling in Mr Sahabuddin Molla v London Borough of Hackney

This case was heard in the East London Tribunal by Employment Judge Gardiner. Having considered the facts of the case, many of the claimant’s claims were not upheld. However, three claims of religious discrimination and one of workplace harassment related to religion succeeded.

Consideration of Religious Discrimination at Work and Workplace Harassment Related to Religion

Under the Equality Act 2010, religious discrimination occurs if one person treats another less favourably than they treat or would treat others because of that other person’s religion or beliefs. The tribunal explained that it must decide “whether that person was influenced consciously or unconsciously” by the claimant’s ethnicity.

It considered guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission in this regard. The guidance stated that if the treatment in question puts the employee at a clear disadvantage to other workers, this would be indicative of less favourable treatment. Importantly, it explains, “The worker does not have to experience actual disadvantage (economic or otherwise) for the treatment to be less favourable. It is enough that the worker can reasonably say that they would have preferred not to be treated differently from the way the employer treated – or would have treated – another person.”

With respect to workplace harassment related to religion, there must have been unwanted conduct related to the person’s religion. In addition, the unwanted conduct must have had the purpose or effect of violating the person’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.

The Tribunal’s Findings in This Case

The tribunal found that Mr Suckram’s failure to implement the recommendations in the occupational health report constituted workplace harassment related to the claimant’s religion. His refusal to allow the claimant a phased return to work or to put him on light duties constituted unwanted conduct. The fact that this occurred in the same meeting when Mr Suckram made a derogatory comment about the claimant’s faith allowed the tribunal to find that this was the reason for the unwanted conduct.

In its judgment, the tribunal explained, “It was insulting to the claimant and offensive not to follow [occupational health] advice where other staff had been offered light duties for an extended period of time.”

Mr Suckram’s comment about the claimant “suddenly becoming a Muslim” constitutes religious discrimination. The tribunal explained that this comment was “inherently discriminatory against the claimant as a Muslim”. Moreover, they explained that Mr Suckram “would not have made the comment to an equivalent care support worker who was not a Muslim”. The tribunal concluded it as less favourable treatment due to the claimant’s religion.

Similarly, Ms Harve ignoring the claimant’s complaints about the comment and Mr Suckram’s failure to implement occupational health recommendations constituted religious discrimination. Given that one of the complaints related to a comment made about the claimant’s religion, the tribunal could find that ignoring both complaints was because of the claimant’s religion. As the respondent failed to prove any other non-discriminatory explanation, the tribunal found in favour of the claimant.

How Can Redmans Help With Religious Discrimination at Work

If you have suffered religious discrimination at work, you may be able to bring a claim against your employer. Our specialist employment lawyers are happy to listen to your claim and advise you on how best to proceed.

To begin, simply: