A recent Employment Tribunal judgment highlights the growing importance of managing workplace expectations in a way that respects and accommodates cultural identity. In Ruiza v Nuclear Restoration Services Limited, the Tribunal considered whether an instruction given to a Tanzanian employee to speak only English at work amounted to race discrimination.
Background
The Claimant, Mr Ruiza, was employed by Nuclear Restoration Services Limited (NRS), the organisation responsible for the safe decommissioning of first‑generation nuclear and research sites across the UK.
On 9 August 2023, his line manager, Ms Wood, verbally instructed him to speak only English while at work. Four days later, she repeated this instruction in writing via email. The instruction was not linked to any operational requirement, such as safety, team communication, or work‑related interactions, and applied broadly to all conversations at work.
As a result, Ruiza stopped speaking to his family in Swahili during breaks. He told his family in Tanzania that he was no longer allowed to use his native language, even during private phone calls, and asked them not to contact him during working hours until his probation ended. He told the Tribunal that he felt “upset and humiliated” and became increasingly anxious, believing colleagues were monitoring and reporting him.
The Tribunal heard that NRS accepted that Ms Wood issued the instruction following complaints from security guards, who had described Ruiza’s behaviour as “disruptive” and raised concerns about him walking and speaking on his phone as a potential safety issue.
The instruction had a marked personal impact on Ruiza. Ruiza described increased stress at home and tension with his wife and children. In December 2023, he sought medical support and was prescribed sleeping tablets and antidepressants, although he avoided taking sick leave due to concerns about his job security.
On 30 August 2023, shortly after the English‑only instruction, Ruiza was placed on a performance management plan. Although the Tribunal ultimately found that the later performance concerns and his eventual dismissal at the end of his probation were not racially motivated, it held that the timing and nature of the English‑only instruction, and its emotional effect on him, were central to the discrimination findings.
In January 2024, Ruiza raised a grievance alleging race discrimination, but it was not upheld.
Tribunal Decision
The Tribunal upheld claims of direct race discrimination, indirect race discrimination, and harassment in relation to the English language only instruction. The Tribunal also upheld the claim for direct discrimination in relation to the early performance management process.
Key findings included:
- It was reasonable for Ruiza to perceive the workplace as hostile. The Tribunal rejected NRS’s explanation that the instruction was based on concerns about disruption, safety, or communication, describing this justification as “derisory” and lacking credibility.
- There had been no prior criticism of Ruiza’s work performance before the instruction was issued.
- Ms Wood showed a lack of understanding of the discriminatory nature of her actions and the humiliation that it caused.
- The Tribunal considered Ruiza’s GP visit, medication, and family impact when assessing the injury to feelings award.
- NRS’s failure to uphold Ruiza’s grievance exacerbated his sense of humiliation and further damaged his trust in the organisation.
In total, Ruiza was awarded £10,875.94, including £9,000 for injury to feelings.
Lessons for Employers
This case reinforces several key lessons for employers:
- Avoid blanket English language only rules. Such rules are highly likely to be discriminatory unless clearly justified, for example, where essential for safety‑critical communication. Even then, restrictions must be proportionate and applied in a consistent way to employees of all nationalities.
- Train managers to identify equality and discrimination risks. Cultural awareness and discrimination training may have prevented this issue.
- Handle grievances fairly and sensitively. Dismissing a legitimate grievance can worsen the harm suffered and undermine employee trust. Grievance investigations must be independent, thorough, and well‑reasoned.
Before implementing any English language only policy, and alongside having a genuine business reason for implementing the direction, employers should consider if there are often less discriminatory options. For example, if health and safety is being relied on, could multilingual signs and other communications be adequate rather than an English language only requirement.
To discuss the issues raised within this article, please contact us.
