Dana El-Farra was employed by Securitas as a Visitor Engagement Assistant at the National Gallery from April 2018 to November 2019.

During her 20 month employment, she was subjected to several counts of racial discrimination and harassment, including being sent the following email by a senior member of the corporation:

"I have been contacted by Securitas people who are arranging flags badges for the team and I have been asked what is your native country? This is to identify your mother tongue with the appropriate flag and it is not mandatory so I hope you are still happy to wear your flag? I would!"

Dana responded:

"My native country is Britain and my mother tongue is English. Please refer to my British birth certificate attached for further information.

I do not and have not ever held any other nationality other than the British one as per my birth certificate and passport. I acquired the English language as my mother tongue via my British education in the United Kingdom, from nursery school through to postgraduate higher education.

I did learn Arabic as a second language very briefly during my junior school years. It is therefore still at an elementary level. I am more than happy however to wear a badge which reflects this language ability, but I cannot wear a badge which reflects a country which I am not and have never been a national. That would be incorrect and misleading."

Following Dana's clarification that she was British, the staff member and others continued to insist that she was a foreigner as her name was not English and she was not of white British ethnicity.

When Dana raised a grievance about the situation, the company ceased to offer her work following the complaint. When she notified ACAS of this unlawful conduct, the company did not respond, leaving the case to proceed to an employment tribunal in May 2021.

The tribunal's judgement issued in July 2021 concluded that:

"The Claimant was sensitive about questions relating to her ethnicity. That is not a criticism. She is British and such questions can indeed be offensive."

"We find that, whether taken individually or together, and in the context of the Respondent’s workplace, these comments do not meet the threshold where they can be said to have violated her dignity, or to have created an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for her."

Regarding the email:

"This was a clumsy way of asking whether the Claimant spoke other languages and, if so, would she be willing to wear a badge of a particular country."

The tribunal has not published the judgement online, which is unusual as all decisions are made public.

The legal definition of harassment is:

"A person (A) harasses another (B) if 

(a) A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and 

(b) the conduct has the purpose or effect of— 

(i) violating B's dignity, or 

(ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B."

Meanwhile, the tabloid press published a false representation of the case, where they made it appear that Dana had complained about being asked to wear a national flag. Clearly, Dana had stated in her email that she was happy to wear a language badge; she merely objected to being classed as a foreign national when she had made it clear that she was British.

It is notable that the more measured and reasonable newspapers such as the Guardian and Independent did not publish any representations of the case, false or otherwise.

It remains to be questioned why the tribunal has not published the judgement online, despite being alerted to its absence on several occasions. This enables the false tabloid articles to be the sole source on the subject; they too have refused to correct their errors and continue to mislead the public on the true nature of the case.