An employment tribunal judge has dismissed claims by a Japanese professor at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London that she suffered race discrimination from a fellow academic who subjected her to “racist microaggressions”, including “gazing” at her while “walking towards her”, and recommending a sushi restaurant which she might enjoy (GB News, Mail, Telegraph).
During March 2022, Prof Nana Sato-Rossberg, the Head of Department at SOAS’s School of Language, Culture and Linguistics, directly accused Prof Claire Ozanne, the institution’s then recently appointed Deputy Director and Provost – as well as her line manager – of treating her in a way “very different” from other staff.
In an email to Prof Ozanne, she claimed that their recent one-to-one meetings had put her health at risk, and said: “I am really puzzled about the way you treat me… I hope this is not about the colour of my skin, but sadly I cannot stop thinking about this possibility. I ask you nicely could you please stop harassing me?”
After SOAS dismissed her discrimination claims following an internal investigation, Prof Sato-Rossberg took the university to the employment tribunal claiming race discrimination, race harassment, victimisation and unfair treatment for whistleblowing.
The central London tribunal heard that in September 2021, Prof Sato-Rossberg was waiting near the Provost’s office for a meeting with another member of staff, when Prof Ozanne noticed her and invited her to wait in her office, rather than the communal area. She then engaged her in conversation, telling her about a Japanese sushi restaurant near her home which her family enjoyed.
“[Prof Sato-Rossberg] took exception to this,” the hearing was told. The fact that Prof Ozanne had anticipated she liked to talk about Japan was “biased in the first place”, she said, before arguing that: “‘She would not have said to a German person, I like sausage’”.
“If Prof Claire Ozanne wished to make conversation,” she added, “we had many commonalities through our work and professional academic endeavour. But she chose to speak only about topics directly relevant to my race: the liking of Japanese food and that her family like it and eat sushi.”
The panel also heard that in an email to a solicitor concerning her grievance against Prof Ozanne in November 2022, she claimed: “… when it comes to racial discrimination SOAS should not put all the burden of proof on me. If [Prof Ozanne] cannot prove that she does not have any unconscious/conscious bias, my claim should be accepted. Since she is not anybody, but the Provost, who is supposed to be a role model.”
However, the employment tribunal found Prof Sato-Rossberg to have been “predisposed to find fault with Prof Ozanne and to see race discrimination in Prof Ozanne’s interactions with her, when there was none.”
Rejecting her case, Employment Judge Jillian Brown said: “On one occasion in 18 months, Prof Ozanne spoke to Prof Sato-Rossberg warmly about her local Japanese restaurant and her family’s love of sushi.
“She did so, knowing that Prof Sato-Rossberg was Japanese and believing that [she] would receive this positively. She was making small talk and trying to establish a point of shared interest.”
The tribunal concluded that, even if Prof Ozanne’s comments in this regard were partly because of Prof Sato-Rossberg’s race they were not a detriment, nor harassment, because “a reasonable person would not consider themselves at a disadvantage when a manager, trying to be friendly and find common ground, was enthusiastic about food from the person’s country of origin… [and] would not take offence at such complimentary and friendly words”.
In reaching this conclusion, the panel said it had “reminded itself” of the following passage from Justice Underhill’s ruling in Richmond Pharmacology Ltd v Dhaliwal [2009] IRLR 336: “Dignity is not necessarily violated by things said or done which are trivial or transitory, particularly if it should have been clear that any offence was unintended. Whilst it is very important that employers and tribunals are sensitive to the hurt that can be caused by offensive comments or conduct (which are related to protected characteristics)… it is also important not to encourage a culture of hypersensitivity or the imposition of legal liability in respect of every unfortunate phrase.”
The Tribunal went on to note that in Prof Ozanne’s case, her words “were not even ‘unfortunate’. They were not reasonably seen as hurtful or misjudged. On the contrary, the Claimant’s objection reflected the Claimant’s own hypersensitivity and predisposition to find fault with Ms Ozanne.”
As a result, Prof Sato-Rossberg claims of race discrimination and harassment against SOAS were thrown out.
