Leicester: Ms Omooba discrimination, breach of contract and harassment claim rejected

In local news, Seyi Omooba, 26, brought proceedings against Leicester's Curve Theatre and her former agents for £128,000 after being dropped from a stage performance of The Color Purple.

It is reported that she had been due to play the lead character Celie, who is sometimes depicted as being in a lesbian relationship.

Ms Omooba was let go from the performance and dismissed after discovery of a Facebook post she had written in 2014 where she wrote "I do not believe you can be born gay, and I do not believe homosexuality is right, though the law of this land has made it legal doesn't mean its right."

Following her dismissal, Ms Omooba presented a claim for discrimination, harassment and breach of contract which was heard remotely at the Central London Employment Tribunal.  The Employment Tribunal panel was told she had been "unconditionally" offered her full salary for the role by the theatre but she refused, instead bringing legal action on the grounds she had suffered extensive career damage for espousing her religious beliefs.

At the tribunal she sought £4,309 from the theatre plus a further £25,000 for injury to feelings and reputational damage.  She also sued her former agency £98,752 for loss of earnings, future losses, injury to feelings and reputational damage.

All of her claims were rejected and dismissed by the Employment Tribunal panel.  It was concluded "the effect of the adverse publicity from [the 2014 post's] retweet, without modification or explanation, on the cohesion of the cast, the audience's reception, the reputation of the producers and 'the good standing and commercial success' of the production, were the reasons why she was dismissed".

On the harassment claim, it said: "In the view of the tribunal Mr Stafford [Chris Stafford, Chief Executive of Leicester Theatre Trust] did not have the purpose of violating the claimant's dignity or creating an intimidating or humiliating environment for her. His purpose was to save the production."

Miss Omooba had claimed the character's sexuality was ambiguous and she would have refused the role if she had considered her gay.  But this was rejected by the panel, with the panel commenting: "She had taken part in a similar production, she had the script, and knowing that a lesbian relationship was at least one interpretation, she should have considered much earlier whether a red line was to be crossed."

Carrie-Ann Randall, Employment Lawyer and Branch Manager of Lawson-West Solicitors Market Harborough had this to say:

“The rules on discrimination are complicated and problematic.  Simply because Ms Omooba wrote a post expressing her beliefs does not automatically mean the Theatre’s dismissal of her would have been discriminatory.  Ms Omooba would need to demonstrate that she was treated less favourably “because of” one of the nine protected characteristics, sexual orientation being one of them. It could be said Ms Omooba had never raised her beliefs before, actively sought the role and would have continued in the role had it not been for the Theatre’s action in removing her.  Similarly, it was established she had been fully appraised of the facts connected with the character and their sexuality, at no time does there appear to have been a suggestion made to Ms Omooba that she shared the same sexuality, again making it difficult for Ms Omooba to suggest that she had been treated less favourably.

Claims of harassment require a person to demonstrate that they received unwanted conduct that has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the complainant, or violating their dignity.  Claims of this nature are rising in the Employment Tribunal as they are largely based upon those bringing the claim to show subjectively, their belief of suffering and do not require a comparator like other types of discrimination."

 

View all