Islamic Cultural Centre & Ors v Mahmoud

Discriminatory conduct may be triggered by an event that was itself non-discriminatory. The relevant question is whether the subsequent course of conduct was discriminatory, assessed from the evidence as a whole. An appellate court should uphold employment tribunal findings where they have a firm evidential basis and are sufficiently explained. A fuller explanation is not necessarily required where remittal would serve no purpose. A finding of victimisation may stand where the evidence establishes a strong link between protected acts and later less favourable treatment. Permission to appeal was refused.

An administrative assistant employed at the Cultural Centre brought claims under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976. The Employment Tribunal found sex discrimination, race discrimination and victimisation, and awarded substantial damages. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal on race discrimination but upheld the findings of sex discrimination and victimisation. The employers and Dr Teinaz sought permission to appeal, arguing that the original noticeboard dispute was not discriminatory, that the later campaign had not been shown to be because of sex, and that the victimisation findings were inadequately reasoned. The central issue was whether the Employment Tribunal’s findings were sufficiently supported and explained.

Application refused. Pill LJ delivered the judgment, with which Longmore LJ agreed.

1. The Employment Tribunal had heard the evidence conscientiously and made detailed findings. The Employment Appeal Tribunal provided a fair summary of the proceedings and was entitled to conclude that the evidential basis for the findings of sex discrimination and victimisation was strong. The findings were sufficiently explained, and there was no real prospect that the Court of Appeal would grant relief.
2. The absence of a finding that the initial noticeboard dispute was sexually motivated did not invalidate the later finding of sex discrimination. Discriminatory conduct may be triggered by a non-discriminatory event. The Tribunal was entitled to assess the subsequent lengthy campaign in light of the surrounding evidence, including the evidence of Sheikh Mady, the mosque petition and Dr Teinaz’s references to conduct inappropriate for a woman.
3. The finding of victimisation was also open to the Tribunal. The link between the claimant’s grievances and the later incidents was striking. Although fuller reasoning might have been desirable, the evidential basis was sufficiently strong and there was no purpose in remitting the matter for further findings.
4. The late evidence concerning an alleged dispute over spring water could not realistically have altered either tribunal’s decision. The admission of that evidence did not provide a basis for appeal.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): on 14 February 2008, refused the application for permission to appeal.
2. Employment Appeal Tribunal: on 27 June 2007, allowed the appeal against the finding of race discrimination but dismissed the appeals against the findings of sex discrimination and victimisation.
3. Employment Tribunal: decision dated 1 September 2006, following hearings in July and August 2006; found sex discrimination, race discrimination and victimisation and awarded substantial damages.