In the case of Mr Adeel Habib v Currys Group a Currys employee has lost a race discrimination case after a tribunal ruled that his reaction to a missing mug was disproportionate and not racially motivated.
Adeel Habib joined the electrical retailer as a credit support associate in Poole, Dorset, in January 2023, but left less than four months later. The employment tribunal in Southampton heard that Mr Habib became “greatly upset” in March when his mug went missing and accused colleagues of theft.
One co-worker suggested the mug may have been used by someone else, as cups in the office kitchen were considered communal. She even offered to help him ask around to find it.
Mr Habib later claimed that his colleagues began to “cold shoulder” him after the incident, which he alleged was due to race discrimination. However, the tribunal found that his confrontational reaction—not his race—likely led to any resentment from colleagues.
Employment Judge David Hughes concluded that Mr Habib implied his colleagues had stolen the mug, which likely caused tension in the workplace. The judge also noted that Mr Habib appeared to struggle with workplace social norms and may have unintentionally used confrontational language.
“We find that Mr Habib was probably very upset about his mug,” said Judge Hughes. “Just how upset he was probably seemed to his colleagues to be out of proportion.”
Mr Habib also claimed race discrimination when his manager denied him five weeks’ leave to attend weddings in Pakistan—a request made just a month after starting his job. The tribunal found the decision was consistent with Currys’ standard policy and not discriminatory.
Additionally, Mr Habib alleged sexual harassment by a female colleague, but the tribunal dismissed these claims as “simply incredible.”
Currys terminated Mr Habib’s employment at the end of March without offering an appeal. His unfair dismissal claim was rejected, as he had not been employed long enough to qualify. However, the tribunal did award him three weeks’ notice pay because his contract did not specify a probationary period, entitling him to one month’s notice instead of one week.
