A ‘blonde haired, blue eyed’ actress has won more than £18,000 in a race discrimination case after her boss at a bar where she was working described her as ‘Aryan’.
Sky Sinclair, 35, was asked ‘how was Germany?’ even though she had no connection to the country, an employment tribunal heard.
The tribunal heard that on two occasions bar owner Ahmed Soliman suggested that Ms Sinclair was ‘racist or associated with Nazi ideology’ telling her she ‘liked white people better’.
Employment Judge Shona MacLean ruled that Mr Soliman – who called her ‘Aryan’ because of her ‘blue eyes and blonde hair’ – had violated her ‘dignity and created a degrading, intimidating, humiliating and offensive environment for her’.
After successfully suing for race and sex discrimination after she was sacked, Ms Sinclair has now won compensation for race and sex discrimination and unfair dismissal.
The Scottish actor is based in Glasgow and has appeared in numerous short films since 2016.
She recently completed filming as the leading lady a feature film ‘Zanni’, a gothic fantasy film.
The hearing in Glasgow was told that the duty manager started her job at The Old Toll Bar – one of the city’s oldest – in July 2022.
Sky Sinclair (pictured) won £18,568 in compensation after successfully suing for race and sex discrimination when her boss Ahmed Soliman claimed she ‘liked white people better’
In the summer of 2023, Mr Soliman told her: ‘You look very Aryan with your blue eyes and blonde hair.’
Judge MacLean said Ms Sinclair, who is from Ayr, ‘perceived this as a joke but felt uncomfortable and unsure how to respond’.
In a second incident, around August or September that year, the tribunal heard she had brought coffee in for a colleague. Mr Soliman said, ‘is that for me?’ and upon learning that it was not added, ‘oh yeah I forgot you like white people better’ and ‘how was Germany?’
The tribunal said: ‘Ms Sinclair had no connection with Germany and interpreted the comment, in light of the earlier remark, as suggesting that that she was racist or associated with Nazi ideology.
‘She felt awkward and believed that Mr Soliman was deriving satisfaction from her discomfort.
‘In late October 2023, Ms Sinclair privately messaged him about a comment he made in a group chat about a colleague.
‘She expressed concern that the comment was threatening, and sometimes there was a tense atmosphere among staff when he was present.
‘Mr Soliman replied that he was not blaming staff for quiet periods but he needed to control spending and felt a lack of feedback was insulting and hurtful.’
An employment judge ruled Mr Soliman had violated Ms Sinclair’s ‘dignity and created a degrading, intimidating, humiliating and offensive environment for her’
The tribunal heard Mr Soliman became increasingly distant towards Ms Sinclair following this exchange.
That December, he deleted a message from Ms Sinclair requesting support and did not respond to a follow up. Ms Sinclair raised this with a manager and was told this was because she had said Mr Soliman came across as ‘threatening’.
The tribunal said: ‘The manager reported that (Mr Soliman) had commented, ‘You just get some females like that.’ The claimant felt anxious about this comment. She thought that the second respondent did not have a high regard for women who did not agree with him.’
Ms Sinclair was fired in April 2024, after working for the company for two years, the tribunal heard.
A month before she was sacked, she was removed from the work group chat.
Then she arrived at work and was told by her manager that she was being ‘dismissed due to poor sales performance’ and she was told to ‘leave immediately’.
Judge MacLean said that the bar claimed they were firing Ms Sinclair for conduct reasons, but there was ‘no evidence of misconduct’.
She concluded that the dismissal was ‘unfair’ and it seemed to be to ‘avoid Ms Sinclair acquiring statutory rights.’
She ordered the company to pay Ms Sinclair £18,568 in compensation.
‘I found that the comments occurred and constituted unwanted conduct.’ she said.
‘The race-related remarks were unsolicited. Mr Soliman appeared to derive satisfaction from her discomfort.
‘Even if that was not the purpose, viewed objectively, it was reasonable in my view to have that effect.
‘As the business owner, his comments on Ms Sinclair’s race and appearance placed her in a difficult position.
‘The second comment caused her to review the first in a more troubling light.
‘The third comment, relayed to her by a manager, was not race-related but related to sex. It was reasonable for Ms Sinclair to be upset that he had made such remarks about her to other staff.’
When talking about her dismissal, Judge MacLean said: ‘The bar cited conduct as a reason.
‘Ms Sinclair produced evidence that her reported sales figures were comparable to colleagues and reflected shift performance, not individual conduct.
‘I found no evidence of misconduct. The dismissal appeared predetermined to avoid her acquiring statutory rights.
‘I concluded the dismissal was for an unfair reason.’
Ms Sinclair trained at the UK Screen Acting Academy and holds additional qualifications as a primary school teacher and hypnotherapist.
She said she was unable to comment on the case today as she was attending an audition.
