Ms Omooba was an actress – a committed Christian and the daughter of Pastor Ade Omooba, a co-founder and director of Christian Concern and the Christian Legal Centre. The First Respondent, Michael Garret Associates Ltd, was her agent (and an employment services provider pursuant to s.55 Equality Act 2010). The Second Respondent, the Leicester Theatre Trust Ltd, had engaged her to play the role of Celie in a joint production of a play based on Alice Walker’s novel The Color Purple. The engagement was to be from 28 May to 20 July 2019 and the cast was publicly announced in March.
On 15 March 2019, another actor posted a screenshot of a Facebook post by Ms Omooba in September 2014, when she was a student just turned 20, in which she had written the following:
“Some Christians have completely misconceived the issue of Homosexuality, they have begun to twist the word of God. it is clearly evident in 1 Corinthians 6:9 -11 what the bible says on this matter. I do not believe you can be born gay, and I do not believe homosexuality is right, though the law of this land has made it legal doesn’t mean it’s right. I do believe that everyone sins and falls into temptation but it’s by the asking of forgiveness, repentance and the grace of God that we overcome and live how God ordained us too, which is that a man should leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. Genesis 2:24. God loves everyone, just because he doesn’t agree with your decisions doesn’t mean he doesn’t love you. Christians we need to step up and love but also tell the truth of God’s word. I am tired of lukewarm Christianity, be inspired to stand up for what you believe and the truth #our God is three in one #God (Father) #Christ (son) #Holy Spirit” 
The Leicester Theatre Trust sacked her on 21 March and Michael Garrett Associates Ltd terminated its agency contract with her on 24 March.
In Seyi Omooba v Michael Garret Associates Ltd T/A Global Artists & Anor  UKET 2202946/19, 2602362/19, Ms Omooba asserted:
“(a) a belief in the truth of the Bible, in particular Genesis 2:24 and 1 Corinthians 6:9, (b) a belief that although God loves all mankind, He does not love all mankind’s acts, in particular, she believes that homosexual practice (as distinct from homosexual desires) is sinful/morally wrong”
– but she did not assert a belief that homosexuality, either as a matter of orientation or of desire (as opposed to homosexual practice), was in itself sinful or wrong .
When she had accepted the part of Celie in The Color Purple, she had evidently done so on the basis that “there were several interpretations of the relationship between Celie and Shrug” (the other main character) . The respondents, however, described the play as an “iconic gay work” . At the time of accepting the part, she had not read the script and “had still not read it when the storm blew up which led to her being dropped from the production” . In her witness statement of January 2021, she had agreed “that it was not the role for her” . The Employment Tribunal concluded on that point that she had not accepted the part in bad faith or to set up a discrimination claim as part of a Christian campaign against homosexuality: rather, “We concluded that she had not done her homework or been paying attention…” .
Applying the test in Grainger PLC v Nicholson  UKEAT 0219/09/0311, the Tribunal concluded “after anxious and careful consideration … that the Claimant’s beliefs as manifested in the Facebook post did scrape over the threshold for protection, having regard to section 9(2) [of the ECHR]” . It also concluded, however:
- that the direct discrimination claim had not been made out against either the theatre or her agent ;
- that the indirect discrimination claim had not been made out, because the provision, criterion or practice (PCP) alleged against the agency would only disadvantage those who condemned homosexuality on religious grounds – “It is a restatement of the case of indirect discrimination”  – and similar considerations applied to the PCP alleged against the theatre .
She had been dismissed because of the effect of the adverse publicity arising from the retweet of her Facebook post, “without modification or explanation, on the cohesion of the cast, the audience’s reception, the reputation of the producers and ‘the good standing and commercial success’ of the production” . Further:
“The centrality of authentic depiction of a lesbian role was a key part of the factual matrix. It was not necessary that she should be a lesbian, but it was important that she was not perceived by audience and company as hostile to lesbians. The decision to terminate was made to deal with the dysfunctional situation that arose from the context and circumstances of the public retweeting. The religious belief itself was not the reason why the theatre decided this. It was the commercial and artistic reality of the cluster of factors that it would not succeed” .
The Tribunal also rejected the claims of harassment and breach of contract. As to the latter:
“if there were a breach, there are no damages. There is no financial loss because she would not have played the part. There is no loss of opportunity to enhance her reputation by performing, because she would not have played the part. If there is damage to her reputation, it was not caused by being dropped from the production but by an unconnected person’s tweeting in March 2016 of her Facebook post and the outcry resulting from that” .