Black challenge supervisor who sued Heathrow Airport for £1m after being ‘strip searched’ when she set off scanner loses race discrimination declare

A black project manager at Heathrow attempted to sue the airport for more than £1million for discrimination after she was ‘strip searched’ when she set off a scanner.

Veleta Brown said she felt she had been ‘violated’ when security officer Sorien Monfries asked her to step to the side to carry out a ‘private search’.

The project manager said she was ‘treated as a criminal’ and that she was allegedly ‘marched’ out of the room by two security guards, an employment tribunal heard.

She lodged a grievance against the London airport and claimed the search amounted to racial discrimination and harassment.

However, after suing Heathrow for more than £1million, an employment judge has now dismissed her claims, ruling that the search was ‘not related’ to her race.

The tribunal heard how Miss Brown, who describes herself as Black Caribbean, started working as a Delivery Project Manager at Heathrow Airport in June 2022.

Miss Brown was due to meet a contractor in the secure airside area of the airport which meant she was required to pass through security.

In evidence, she accepted that these checks are ‘important’ and that the consequences ‘of getting it wrong can be catastrophic’.

The security process involves an individual passing through the archway scanner which has two functions – a metal detector and a body scanner.

If the body scanner identifies a ‘zone of concern’ then the person is asked to step to one side and consent to a search.

This involved being patted down over their clothing and scanned with a hand-held metal detector.

However, if the security officer carrying out the search, is unable to satisfy themselves that there is no security concern, then a private search is the ‘next step’.

Miss Brown told the tribunal that this is something that is not usually carried out – but this was disputed by the airport who said it is ‘required when a security officer cannot satisfy themselves’ that the ‘area of concern has been resolved’.

On October 22, 2022, she walked through the scanner, showed her ID, and was then asked to step to the side for a body scan by Ms Monfries as the archway alarm was activated.

Employment Judge Anna Poynton said: ‘[Miss Brown] accepted when cross-examined that the archway cannot select on the grounds of race.’

The manager said she was ‘patted down’ three times over clothing by Ms Monfries which she found to be ‘excessive’.

According to her evidence, she asked the security officer ‘is there a problem’ to which Ms Monfries responded ‘I am uncomfortable’.

Miss Brown alleged that the officer ‘repeatedly patted around the bra area’ before turning to a colleague and stating she wanted to do a private search.

But she replied with: ‘I’m just not comfortable’.

Following this, Miss Brown claimed she was ‘marched with one security guard in front of her and one behind her’ into a side room and alleged that one of the guards stood in front of the door to prevent her from leaving the room.

However, this was disputed by the airport who said this was in fact done to stop someone from entering the room.

The tribunal said: ‘We accept Ms Monfries’ evidence that following the private search, she was satisfied that there were no security concerns and that the [project manager] could proceed airside.’

Miss Brown claimed she had been ‘treated as a criminal’ and felt ’embarrassed, humiliated, degraded and violated’ after the search.

She then refused to sign the consent form afterwards and said had she known this was voluntary – she would have declined.

It was heard that it would not have been possible to proceed airside without carrying out the check.

Miss Brown complained to her line manager about the search before lodging an official grievance, referring to how she did not know any other employees that had been ‘strip searched’.

Her grievance was partially upheld due to a flaw in how it was investigated, but Miss Brown was told that there was ‘no evidence to suggest that the incident raised in October 2022 was an act of direct discrimination’.

Appealing the decision, Miss Brown said: ‘It’s not the process, it’s the way it executed which is my problem, compared to when I looked to the left and the Asian girl came through and she had a quick pat down and was gone but with me, I was scrutinised and embarrassed in front of people and couldn’t even give me a reason.’

She was still not happy with the outcome of her appeal and consequently resigned with immediate effect on June 7 last year.

She then took the airport to an employment tribunal, claiming the only reason she was searched was ‘because of her race’ and initially tried to claim £1,011,150 in compensation.

However, her claims of racial discrimination and harassment were thrown out by the panel.

‘We have concluded that the archway activated which resulted in [Miss Brown] being asked to step aside for a search to be carried out,’ Employment Judge Anna Poynton said.

‘The archway is triggered by the presence of metal.

‘We have concluded that this is not related to [her] race.’

The panel ruled that there had been ‘considerable shortcomings’ in the airport’s handling of Miss Brown’s complaint, but said none of these related to her race.

All claims made by Miss Brown were dismissed.