First award of compensation to an employee for victimisation in the DIFC Courts

The DIFC Courts have, for the first time, awarded an employee compensation for victimisation under the DIFC Employment Law.

This is only the third time the DIFC Court of First Instance (CFI) has decided claims for discrimination and victimisation under DIFC Law No.2 of 2019 (as amended) the DIFC Employment Law. Clyde & Co’s MEA employment team acted for the successful employers in the other two cases: Omar Ben Hallam v Natixis CFI 016/2025 and Shiraz Mahmood v Standard Chartered Bank DIFC CFI 044/2021.

In Oluremi v Omolara CFI 107/2025, the CFI held that an employer had unlawfully victimised an employee for doing a protected act after the employee filed a claim in the DIFC Courts alleging harassment against her employer. 

The Court found that, by placing the employee on “administrative leave” without pay shortly after she filed her claim, and terminating her employment without notice days later, the employer had unlawfully victimised the employee under Article 60 of the DIFC Employment Law. 

The Court awarded the employee AED 88,633, comprising outstanding wages and allowances, notice pay and compensation for victimisation, and dismissed the employer’s counterclaim for alleged overpayment of wages.

The Court also issued a declaration that the employee had been unlawfully victimised. Whilst the Court recognised that a declaration does not provide financial recompense, it noted that the employee would be entitled to point to a judgment of the Court showing that she had been unlawfully treated. The Court further stated that, given the purposes of the DIFC Employment Law, it is important that employers know that if they treat employees unlawfully, the Court will issue declarations to that effect.

In awarding the employee compensation equal to three months’ pay, the Court had regard to:

1. The circumstances of the victimisation;
2. The fact that, as the Court accepted, the employee had suffered stress and had been made ill as a result of the employer’s actions;
3. The fact that the employee had moved to Dubai to take up the job; and
4. The Court’s finding that the employer dismissed the employee as a direct result of her doing a protected act, such that the employer’s conduct could properly be viewed as cynical and in direct contravention of the law.

The Court concluded that an award of three months’ pay reflected the damage the employee had suffered and bore an appropriate relationship to both the statutory maximum compensation (12 months’ pay) and the cynical conduct of the employer.

The judgment is a clear reminder that, in the DIFC, employees are protected not only from discriminatory treatment but also from retaliation for doing a protected act, which could include (i) bringing proceedings under Part 9 of the DIFC Employment Law (e.g. for discrimination and/or harassment); (ii) giving evidence or information in connection with proceedings under Part 9 of the DIFC Employment Law; (iii) doing any other thing for the purposes of, or in connection with, Part 9 of the DIFC Employment Law; or (iv) making an allegation that their employer (or any other person) has contravened Part 9 of the DIFC Employment Law.

For DIFC employers, the practical lessons from this case are: 

1. Employers are exposed to potentially significant awards of compensation if they act in breach of the anti-discrimination and victimisation protections contained in the DIFC Employment Law.
2. As a minimum, employers in the DIFC will be expected to have in place anti-bullying and harassment, equal opportunities, and disciplinary and grievance policies. 
3. Employers should ensure they have appropriate frameworks in place to manage workplace conduct, apply those frameworks consistently across the workforce and ensure that the entire workforce, and  managers in particular, are trained to do so.
4. Managers and HR professionals operating in the DIFC need to understand the anti-discrimination and victimisation protections contained in the DIFC Employment Law and how to navigate day-to-day workplace issues having regard to those protections. 
5. Employers need to have well-drafted employment contracts in place.
6. The DIFC Courts are increasingly focussing on how employers treat their employees. 
7. Following the coming into force of Practice Direction No. 1 of 2025 – Access to Justice in Employment Disputes, employees will find it easier, financially, to bring claims of discrimination, harassment and victimisation in the DIFC Courts.

If you would like to discuss the implications of this judgment or require assistance with DIFC employment compliance, please contact your usual Clyde & Co adviser. 

Unlock a wealth of comprehensive insights by subscribing to our new innovative platform, Law at Work. If you have any questions, please contact our employment team at lawatwork@clydeco.com.

Learn more about Law at Work