Ms Seyi Omooba v (1) Michael Garrett Associates Ltd (ta Global Artists) (2) Leicester Theatre Ltd
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Eady |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Published date | 06 March 2024 |
Judgment approved by the Court for handing down: SEYI OMOOBA v GLOBAL ARTISTS AND ANOR
© EAT 2024 Page 1 [2024] EAT 30
Neutral Citation Number: [2024] EAT 30 Case No: EA-2021-000523-NLD
EA-2021-000604-NLD
EA-2021-000086-NLD
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Date: 6 March 2024
Before :
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE EADY DBE, PRESIDENT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
SEYI OMOOBA Appellant
- and –
MICHAEL GARRETT ASSOCIATES LTD (T/A GLOBAL ARTISTS) (1)
First Respondent
LEICESTER THEATRE TRUST LTD (2) Second Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NIAZI FETTO KC and BRUNO QUINTAVALLE (instructed by Andrew Storch Solicitors) for the
Appellant
CHRISTOPHER MILSOM (instructed by Didlaw) for the First Respondent
TOM COGHLIN KC (instructed by Howes Percival LLP) for the Second Respondent
Hearing dates: 12-14 December 2023
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
This judgment was handed down by the Judge remotely by circulation to the parties' representatives
by email and release to The National Archives.
The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 10:30 on 06.03.2024
Judgment approved by the Court for handing down: SEYI OMOOBA v GLOBAL ARTISTS AND ANOR
© EAT 2024 Page 2 [2024] EAT 30
SUMMARY
Religion or belief – direct discrimination – section 13 Equality Act 2010
Harassment – section 26 Equality Act 2010
Breach of contract
Practice and procedure – costs
Practice and procedure – use of disclosed documents
The claimant was an actor, cast to play the role of Celie in the stage production of The Color Purple. Celie is
seen as an iconic lesbian role and, when the claimant’s casting was announced, a social media storm developed
relating to a past Facebook post in which she had expressed her belief that homosexuality was a sin. The
consequences of that storm led to the termination of the claimant’s contracts wit h the theatre (the second
respondent) and her agency (the first respondent). Arising out of those events, she brought Employment
Tribunal (“ET”) claims of religion and belief discrimination and harassment, and breach of contract. Shortly
before the ET hearing, having only then read the script, the claimant volunteered she would never in fact have
played the part of Celie, and would have resigned from the role in due course. She continued with her claims,
but these were all dismissed and an award of costs made against her. The claimant appealed against those
decisions, and against a further order relating to the continued use of the hearing documents. The respondents
cross-appealed the ET’s finding that the claimant had suffered detrimental treatment, its failure to find that
there was an occupational requirement that the actor playing Celie had not manifested a belief such as that
expressed in the claimant’s Facebook post, and its failure to find that keeping the claimant on the books of the
agency would effectively have amounted to compelled speech.
Held: dismissing the appeals
Although, contrary to the respondents’ first ground of cross-appeal, it had been open to the ET to find that the
claimant had suffered detrimental treatment, it had not fallen into the error of confusing reason and motive but
had permissibly found that, whilst the claimant’s belief formed part of the context, it was not a reason for either
her dismissal by the theatre or the termination of her agency contract. In the circumstances, it was unnecessary
to rule on the occupational requirement or compelled speech arguments.
As for the harassment claim, the ET had not failed to have regard to the impact on the claimant of the social
medial storm (the “other circumstances” for the purposes of section 26(4)(b) Equality Act 2010), but had
found that the respondents had not caused, or contributed to, that circumstance, and permissibly found that the
claimant’s treatment had not reasonably had the requisite effect. The ET had also been entitled to reject the
Judgment approved by the Court for handing down: SEYI OMOOBA v GLOBAL ARTISTS AND ANOR
© EAT 2024 Page 3 [2024] EAT 30
claimant’s argument that any breach of ECHR rights would amount to a “violation of dignity”; that argument
was academic, as the ET had not found that any of the claimant’s ECHR rights had been infringed.
The ET had also been correct to dismiss the claimant’s breach of contract claim against the second respondent.
She had been offered the full contract fee, so there was no pecuniary loss. Moreover, as the claimant knew
she would not play a lesbian character, but had not raised this with the theatre, or sought to inform herself as
to the requirements of the role of Celie, she was in repudiatory breach of her express obligations, and of the
implied term of trust and confidence. Although the second respondent was not aware of this at the date of
termination, no damages (e.g. for loss of publicity/enhanced reputation) could be due.
In making a costs award against the claimant, the ET had been entitled to reach the conclusion that her claims
either had no reasonable prospect of success from the outset, or that they had no reasonable prospect once the
claimant realised that she would never in fact have played the role of Celie, or that the conduct of the claims
had been unreasonable; as such it had permissibly found the threshold for a costs award was met. As for the
claimant’s objection to the amount of the award (the entirety of the respondents’ costs, subject to detailed
assessment), the ET: (i) was entitled to find that the change i n the claimant’s case had an effect on the entire
proceedings, and (ii) had drawn inferences that were open to it on its findings as to the conduct of the claimant’s
case, such that it had permissibly taken into account the resources of those who had supported the litigation
for their own purposes.
As for the order restricting the future publication of all hearing documents, that had been a decision open to
the ET under its powers of case management. It had had due regard to the open justice principle and been
entitled to exercise its discretion in the way that it had.
To continue reading
Request your trial