Star Wars’ The Acolyte executive Sadi Khan wins £234k for unfair dismissal after being sacked for complaining about ‘white man’

Health and safety manager on Disney’s Star Wars production Helper He was awarded £234,110 in compensation after the employment tribunal found he had been unfairly dismissed because he complained that he had been replaced by a “white man”.

Sadi Khan MBE was the first black woman to focus on health and safety in Disney’s Star Wars series.

But he was replaced by industry veteran Jay Bond, who was tasked with improving the show’s “dysfunctional” health and safety.

Ms Khan complained that the move was “racist” and said she felt “uncomfortable” being replaced by a “white man”.

He said he had “fought with white men a few times before.”

Ms Khan was later fired for harassing Mr Bond.

However, the court found that the decision to hire a new health and safety chief was not racially motivated, but that dismissing Ms Khan following her complaint was wrong.

From Nottingham, Ms Khan attended the National Film and Television School to study Production Management.

He was awarded an MBE in 2018 for cultural and religious awareness, education and services to vulnerable people.

He found a job at Disney Productions as a live-action set health and safety coordinator. Snow White Remake from January 2022.

In June 2022, Ms Khan joined Blue Stockings Limited, Disney’s UK subsidiary responsible for producing the Star Wars show. Helper Shinfield Studios is in Berks.

helper It is a Star Wars series streaming on Disney+ and is considered the franchise’s most diverse project to date, with a female lead who is both Asian and black.

Ms Khan said: “People work in the industry for 10-15 years to get into Star Wars, I had done it in less than 6 months, without completing the required qualifications.”

His duties included “collecting paperwork, reporting accidents, booking and coordinating training courses, as well as dealing with financial matters and keeping track of the Ministry’s budget and expenditure.”

He was given a salary of £1,875 per week (even higher than the highest salary range this position would normally have) and was quickly promoted to the rank of health and safety department manager.

However, the promotion caused some confusion as Ms Khan was not qualified as a health and safety consultant and therefore did not fully understand the role.

Despite this, he acted as if he were the head of department and “no one told him otherwise”, the court heard.

Some staff complained about Ms Khan during her time in charge, saying her communication was too harsh, with one staff member even describing it as “bullying”.

Overall, the health and safety department was underperforming from July 2022 until the inspection in October; This was a “catalyst for change” by bosses, the court said.

At the meeting held on October 1, it was determined that the “structure” of the apartment was “wrong” and needed to be changed.

In order to fix the “dysfunctional” department, HelperThe producers hired Mr. Bond.

The court heard he had “many years of experience as a Health and Safety Adviser in the film and television industry and is highly respected”.

The company had planned to hire him earlier to bring the department closer to industry standards, but Mr. Bond was unavailable.

However, Ms Khan was unhappy with her appointment as she felt she had been demoted despite having done nothing wrong.

She said: “I told Mr Bond that I found this unfair and that he needed to appreciate that as a woman of color I felt discriminated against.”

A production meeting was held on 12 October and it was stated that “voices were raised” as Ms Khan “forcefully” defended herself, believing her position to be at risk.

He later went to the team’s doctor “in tears” and complained that the “white man” had been brought on him.

This led her to lodge a complaint against Ms Khan: “I am concerned that I am working alongside someone who uses extremely offensive, racist language and that my name will be mentioned in racially abusive conversations with colleagues and who knows how many others.”

An investigation was launched and Ms Khan told the investigating boss that “it was racist to let Jay in”.

When the boss challenged her and said it was from her own experience, she said: “I’m an Asian woman and they’re kicking me out with a white man.

“If I take this any further, they won’t have any legs to stand on.”

He also complained that Mr Bond was paid more than he was, described white people as “you bloody bastards” and said he had “been in a few fights with white men before”.

A disciplinary meeting was held at the beginning of November and Ms Khan said she had been deceived and felt “uncomfortable” that a “British man” had been placed above her.

Another meeting was held on 24 November, where Ms Khan was found guilty of gross misconduct and dismissed. He objected, but the decision was approved.

The dismissal letter said: “During the disciplinary meeting, you confirmed that you referred to Head of Department (HOD) Jay Bond as the ‘white man’ placed above you, which made you uncomfortable.

“You stated that you felt discriminated against because of your race and gender… ‘They put a white man over me, I didn’t do anything wrong’.”

Ms Khan took her case to an employment tribunal in Reading, where she was found to have “completely failed to establish the facts” that there was bias against her in the workplace.

Therefore, claims of discrimination, harassment, harm, and unequal pay were dismissed.

But Labor Judge Andrew Gumbiti-Zimuto concluded it was wrong to dismiss Ms Khan after she made an allegation.

He said: “This is because [Ms Khan] The reason for his dismissal was that Jay Bond complained about his appointment as Head of Department, describing him as a white man who had been appointed above him, stating that this was discriminatory based on his gender and race.

“We reject the suggestion that this was in any way related to the manner in which the complaints were made or that it was a subjective reason. [and] not because [Ms Khan] He had committed a protected action.

“In our opinion, [Ms Khan’s] The comments accepted did not mean he was harassing Mr Bond. [Disney’s] Policy.

“[Ms Khan] He was complaining about being replaced by a white man, or that on another occasion he had said ‘British’ and that person was Mr Bond.

“This is not, in any event, harassment of Mr. Bond.”

The court ruled in favor of Ms Khan’s unfair dismissal and dismissal-related victimization claims.

He was awarded £234,112.66 for the claims.

Ms Khan has not worked in the industry since her dismissal.