Frank Aliyu v Tesco Stores Limited
[2024] EAT 185
Seyi Omooba v Michael Garrett Associates Ltd & Anor
6 March 2024
[2024] EAT 30
Employment Appeal Tribunal
An actress lost her role in a play after her anti-gay views went viral. She sued for discrimination, but the court said her views were part of the situation, not the main reason she lost her job. She also lost because she admitted she wouldn't have taken the role anyway. The court also said she had to pay the other side's legal costs, and limited the release of the court's documents after the case ended.
Key Facts
- •Seyi Omooba, an actress, was cast in the stage production of 'The Color Purple' but was dismissed after a social media storm erupted over her past Facebook post expressing her belief that homosexuality is a sin.
- •Omooba brought claims of religion or belief discrimination and harassment, and breach of contract against the theatre and her agency.
- •Shortly before the Employment Tribunal (ET) hearing, Omooba admitted she would not have played the role of Celie (a lesbian character) and would have resigned.
- •The ET dismissed all of Omooba's claims and awarded costs against her.
- •Omooba appealed the ET's decisions, and the respondents cross-appealed.
- •The appeals concerned the determination of the reason for the dismissal in a direct discrimination claim, the evaluation of the effect required for a harassment claim, breach of contract, costs awards, and the use of hearing documents.
Legal Principles
Direct Discrimination under the Equality Act 2010
Equality Act 2010, section 13
Harassment under the Equality Act 2010
Equality Act 2010, section 26
Breach of Contract
Common Law Contract Principles
Costs Awards in Employment Tribunals
ET Rules 74-84
Open Justice and Access to Court Documents
Common Law and Case Law
Outcomes
Appeals dismissed.
The ET correctly distinguished between the context of Omooba's belief and the actual reasons for her dismissal. Her belief was part of the context but not the reason for the decisions. The harassment claims lacked merit as the respondents didn't create the hostile environment. The breach of contract claim failed due to Omooba's own repudiatory breach. The costs order was justified by the lack of merit and unreasonable conduct of the claims.