Heathrow security officer who was told to remove Palestine badge claims it is same as being asked to take off her hijab as she sues for discrimination

Published: 11:22, 30 June 2026 | Updated: 11:22, 30 June 2026 A Heathrow security officer has sued her bosses for discrimination after she was told to remove her pro-Palestine badge claiming it was the same as being asked to take off her hijab. Zara Saiyed argued that her colleagues and bosses discriminated against her because of her race and religion following a dispute over the Palestinian flag pinned to her staff lanyard.      She also went as far as to claim that the removal of the emblem is 'tantamount to finding my hijab offensive and insisting on its removal.' Ms Saiyed also accused Heathrow Airport Ltd of being 'complicit in the killing of Palestinian babies' as she pursued a series of grievances. But after hearing just under two weeks of evidence, an Employment Tribunal has unanimously dismissed all of her claims. The dispute began in November 2023 when Ms Saiyed, a Muslim security officer based at Heathrow, was challenged by a colleague over the flag badge attached to her staff lanyard. Ms Saiyed, who has previously been a Unite Union rep, lodged a formal grievance the following day, arguing the flag was an important expression of her identity and beliefs and that asking her to remove it amounted to discrimination. It caused a row which led to Ms Saiyed submitting more complaints. Zara Saiyed (pictured) argued that her colleagues and bosses discriminated against her because of her race and religion following a dispute over the Palestinian flag pinned to her staff lanyard Ms Saiyed went as far to compare the request to remove her pro-Palestine badge as being the same as asking her to remover her hijab (file image) She wrote to bosses: 'Demanding the removal of the Palestinian flag from my lanyard is tantamount to finding my hijab offensive and insisting on its removal.' In another, she accused Heathrow of being 'complicit in the killing of Palestinian babies', claiming the airport's response to her complaints amounted to supporting the oppression of Palestinians. She went on to raise numerous grievances and complaints about the way the airport dealt with the dispute. This included allegations relating to internal meetings, diversity events, communications with managers and the decision not to publish a Ramadan video in which she had appeared, the tribunal heard. One complaint centred on her being muted during an online Race Equality Matters event, which she believed formed part of the discriminatory treatment she was receiving. But the tribunal found it was accidental. Rather than supporting Ms Saiyed's allegations, the tribunal found Heathrow had repeatedly investigated her complaints, met with her on numerous occasions and sought to resolve the issues she raised. Ms Saiyed was also spoken to by Heathrow Airport intelligence officers as the dispute intensified. She cited the meeting in support of her case, but the panel ultimately concluded it did not advance her discrimination claims. Rather than supporting Ms Saiyed's allegations, the tribunal found Heathrow had repeatedly investigated her complaints, met with her on numerous occasions and sought to resolve the issues she raised The panel reserved some of its strongest criticism for Ms Saiyed's evidence. The tribunal found she was 'susceptible to hyperbole', capable of 'misinterpreting, misunderstanding and/or misremembering' events and had become 'swept along with her own inaccurate narrative'. The judgment said: 'We find that the claimant is capable of saying something and believing it is true and yet is shown to be wrong when you look at the contemporaneous documents.' It continued: 'We find that this connects to the fact that the claimant in person is very polite and not aggressive. We find that she would not want to think that she would accuse anyone of racism or of being a racist as she would consider herself too polite.' The tribunal added: 'We find that the claimant is a very capable, intelligent individual, but someone whose evidence was not always credible and reliable.' By contrast, the judges said Heathrow's witnesses 'demonstrated no such tendencies to hyperbole or misinterpretation', adding that where the evidence conflicted they preferred the airport's contemporaneous documents, emails, meeting notes and witness accounts. The panel found there was no evidence that Heathrow's actions had been motivated by Ms Saiyed's race or religion, concluding that the decisions complained of were management responses to an increasingly complex workplace dispute rather than acts of unlawful discrimination. It dismissed all of Ms Saiyed's claims of direct race discrimination, direct religious discrimination, harassment and victimisation. Concluding, the tribunal ruled that while Ms Saiyed genuinely believed she had been wronged, the evidence simply did not support the serious allegations she had made against her employer. The dispute unfolded against a backdrop of wider controversy over Palestinian symbols worn by Heathrow staff following the outbreak of the Gaza war. In June 2024, five security officers were removed from screening an El Al flight to Tel Aviv after passengers complained they felt intimidated by Palestinian flags and watermelon badges worn on their uniforms. Heathrow said at the time that all passengers should feel 'safe and welcome' at the airport and stressed that staff were expected to follow its uniform policy, with any unauthorised items being removed. The airport later reiterated that political badges were not part of its approved uniform and confirmed it would ensure the rules were enforced. No comments have so far been submitted. Why not be the first to send us your thoughts, or debate this issue live on our message boards. By posting your comment you agree to our house rules. Do you want to automatically post your MailOnline comments to your Facebook Timeline? Your comment will be posted to MailOnline as usual. Do you want to automatically post your MailOnline comments to your Facebook Timeline? Your comment will be posted to MailOnline as usual We will automatically post your comment and a link to the news story to your Facebook timeline at the same time it is posted on MailOnline. To do this we will link your MailOnline account with your Facebook account. We’ll ask you to confirm this for your first post to Facebook. You can choose on each post whether you would like it to be posted to Facebook. Your details from Facebook will be used to provide you with tailored content, marketing and ads in line with our Privacy Policy.