Telling a junior colleague to “shut up” because you are their “superior” is age harassment, according to a ruling from an employment tribunal.
Trainee sales worker Soraya Qarouane won more than £13,000 after she was mistreated by her boss for refusing to take on extra work.
Ms Qarouane had been hired by HAIX, a sales company which specialised in AI and tech tools.
However, she and another young worker at HAIX, Ryan Marugah, took the company to an employment tribunal over the way that older colleagues spoke to them.
They have both been awarded large sums, including over £6,000 each for unpaid wages.
Ms Qarouane was awarded £13,767, while Mr Marugah was awarded more than £11,000 after he was told that someone of his age “would not have knowledge of corporate or business law” because he brought up the fact that he had not been paid the correct amount.
Mr Marugah and Ms Qarouane both joined HAIX after seeing the company’s ad on LinkedIn, which said it was recruiting 20 sales executives to join its teams in Cardiff, Bristol, London and Birmingham.
The company described itself as “a software company offering AI-driven social listening solutions”, and offered applicants a salary of £50,000 and commissions that could total over £120,000.
They were interviewed by the company’s head of social intelligence and director of sales & partnerships, Leo Aghili.
During the interview, Mr Aghili told the applicants “that they would be offered a full-time role if they achieved a total of £15,000 sales during a six-week trial period”.
The tribunal noted: “During that period they would be paid commission on the sales they achieved.
“Both [of them] understood that payment during the trial period would be on the basis of commission and not salary.
“They were assured that the team was performing, the products were selling and that they should easily make the target.”
They were both successful in the interview and began their six week trials for HAIX in London in October 2023 for 40 hours a week.
The pair were then told that £15,000 was not just their trial target but a monthly recurring target – a change from what they were originally told – and were both given a measly £300 just before Christmas 2023.
As time went on, they both realised that the AI service was “not something that could be sold quickly”.
Deals required months of negotiation and planning and “no deals had been made by any of the team”, they told the tribunal.
The company did not contact them when their six-week trial was up, other than encouragement that “deals were on their way”.
Ms Qarouane raised concerns about the lack of deals and pay in December 2023, but said she was told by Mr Aghili to take a day off.
She said a number of difficulties arose when she appeared to be close to making deals in January 2024 because she was “not provided with the information she needed to complete” them.
On 24 January 2024, Mr Aghili asked her to take on additional marketing-related responsibilities – but she said no because “she was not paid to do this and was already fully occupied with her role”, she said.
In response, Mr Aghili raised his voice and told her to “shut up” and said “I am your superior”, the tribunal heard.
That same day, Ms Qarouane”s system access was revoked and she was informed that she was sacked, she said.
A WhatsApp message from Mr Aghili said: “This isn’t working I wish you all the best in future we will not be offering you a contract.”
Ms Qarouane submitted a grievance for her unpaid wages and poor treatment, but got no reply.
Mr Marugah also experienced problems in January 2024 when he began to discover that one of the company’s tech tools was “faulty”, he said.
When the tech teams could not get it to work, it “became apparent” to the worker “that the tool was being sold based on misinformation”, he claimed.
Read more: Sending a GIF to a colleague can constitute harassment – and cost you thousands
At the end of January, Mr Aghili transferred £600 to Mr Marugah and other remaining sales executives, but it was a far cry from the sum they had been promised.
In February 2024, Mr Marugah had a Teams meeting with Mr Aghili during which he brought up the fact that he was not being paid.
In response, Mr Aghili told his employee that “someone of his age would not have knowledge of corporate or business law”, the tribunal heard.
Immediately following this meeting, Mr Aghili removed his access to all company systems and fired him over text.
Mr Marugah and Ms Qarouane then took the company to an employment tribunal in Croydon for claims including age harassment and unauthorised deductions from wages.
Employment Judge Anna Beale KC confirmed they had been mistreated.
She concluded that: “The comment to [Mr Marugah] was explicitly related to his age.
“That was not the case for [Ms Qarouane], but she explained that whilst Mr Aghili was her line manager, it was not usual for him to refer to himself as her “superior”.
“He had done so in a sneering, derogatory way. She did not consider that he would have made the comment to an older employee.
“Although I have not found this straightforward to determine, I do consider that, taken in conjunction with the clearly age-related comment made to [Mr Marugah], there are facts from which I can conclude that the comment made to [Ms Qarouane] was also related to age.
“In reaching this conclusion I have also taken into account the evidence from [Ms Qarouane] that [HAIX] appeared purposefully to have recruited a young cohort of workers who might be less experienced in the world of work, and thus more easily manipulated.
“That certainly aligns with Mr Aghili’s comment to [Mr Marugah]. In summary, whilst I consider that Mr Aghili made the comments in retaliation for what he perceived to be challenges from the [two workers], the language and tone he used to do so was related to their age and constituted age-related harassment.”
All the claims they brought to the tribunal were successful.
HAIX, which has since gone bust, has been ordered to pay £13,767 to Ms Qarouane and £11,340 to Mr Marugah.