Prison officer sues for racial discrimination after complaining that inmates’ mural of Marcus Rashford was offensive to Jews

A senior prison officer has sued for religious discrimination after complaining that a mural of Marcus Rashford painted by prisoners was offensive to Jews.

Linda Hancock told bosses that the image of the Manchester United and England star was discriminatory towards people of her faith because he was once photographed with rapper Wiley.

The grime star was suspended from Twitter (now known as X) in 2021 after posting a series of offensive tweets in which he compared Jews to the Ku Klux Klan.

Rashford and his England team-mate Jesse Lingard came under fire after a photograph later emerged of the two of them with Wylie, leading to both issuing statements saying they do not condone racism.

Ms Hancock said she was “deeply offended” by the choice of Rashford for the mural by prison group Equality and asked that another “inspirational” figure be chosen.

However, the consideration of her complaint was delayed, and by the time the investigation was completed, the picture was completed.

Ms Hancock is suing Justice Secretary Alex Chalk over allegations of religious discrimination.

However, her case was dismissed after an employment judge ruled that her grievance had been dealt with fairly.

The hearing in Birmingham was told that Ms Hancock was a senior prison officer with 35 years’ experience, 18 of which were spent at HMP Stafford, a category C prison for male sex offenders.

The tribunal heard Ms Hancock said she had been subject to a number of “very offensive” discriminatory comments during her career, including jokes about gas chambers.

However, this was the first formal complaint she had filed in this regard.

“This was therefore a very important issue for her,” the tribunal said.

The hearing was told that there was a one-story free-standing building on the prison grounds, with murals painted by inmates on the end wall.

“These murals change every few, perhaps every six months,” the tribunal heard. “The theme of this mural was determined by the equality group inside the prison. This group is a mixture of prisoners and staff…”

Ms Hancock was told in February 2022 that the final mural would feature Rashford.

“(She) understood that Mr Rashford was considered inspirational because of his campaigning to support vulnerable children, particularly during the Covid pandemic, for which he was awarded an MBE,” the tribunal heard.

“However, she had a different view of Mr Rashford.

“In the previous week or two, he had been photographed with a rapper known for his anti-Semitic comments on Twitter (as was the case at the time).

“(Ms Hancock) believed this indicated Mr Rashford was friends with or supported this rapper and, as a result, the rapper’s anti-Semitic views.”

Ms Hancock immediately made a formal complaint.

“In it she stated that she was Jewish and was very deeply offended that Mr Rashford was being honored in this way,” the tribunal heard. “She said she was told that ‘the photo op was an accident so it was okay.’ Is not.’

“Her complaint was that the mural was offensive to her and the Jewish people in general in the circumstances that had prevailed in the preceding weeks.”

Asked on the complaint form what should happen next, Ms Hancock said “another inspirational figure needs to be chosen”.

However, the tribunal heard it was five weeks before a meeting could be scheduled to discuss her complaint with bosses.

By then Ms Hancock had called in sick from work and the meeting never took place.

The tribunal heard that an investigation by the prison chaplain found the mural was not discriminatory.

“He noted that Mr Rashford immediately condemned the rapper’s anti-Semitic comments and reiterated his opposition to anti-Semitism.

“(He noted) Mr Rashford said he was unaware of the rapper’s comments when he was attracted by the photo opportunity.

“In all the circumstances, (he) concluded that Mr Rashford himself was not an anti-Semite and could not be said to be an anti-Semite, nor could he be said to support anti-Semitism because a photograph was taken of that particular rapper.

“(He) therefore found that Mr Rashford was a suitable subject for the mural because of his work on child hunger. “He did not uphold (Ms Hancock’s) complaint that the mural was discriminatory because it offended adherents of Judaism.”

Ms Hancock told the tribunal she suffered a mental breakdown and never returned to work. Her job was terminated a year later, in April 2023.

She told the tribunal that her complaint had not been “satisfactorily dealt with” because she was Jewish, and that prison governors treated allegations of discrimination against Jews less seriously than allegations against members of other faiths.

However, the panel, chaired by employment judge Joan Connolly, found that she had not been discriminated against.

“(Ms Hancock) has a deeply held and entirely sincere belief that members of the Jewish faith constitute something of an invisible minority and that the concerns of that community are not taken as seriously as those of other minorities,” the tribunal said. .

“This belief appears to be based, at least in part, on what she says is her life experience of offensive behavior that goes unaddressed when it informally comes to the attention of others.

“We understand this was the first time she had decided to make a formal complaint about such alleged behaviour. As a result, the response she received from her employer was especially meaningful to her.

“She weighed that response against their policies and what she would have done if she had been dealing with a complaint, and found that (prison officials) had fallen short of expectations.

“She concluded that this must say something about (managers’) attitude towards complaints from someone of her particular faith. This is her sincere belief and the real conclusion that she made.

“However, in our opinion, this is not supported by the evidence in this case. This is not a conclusion that we consider appropriate to draw after conducting a forensic examination and a detailed study of the events.”