Claimant v The Metanoia Institute

The claimant alleged a protected act on 27 February 2024 in an email complaining about lack of impartiality, but the tribunal found the email did not allege or hint at a contravention of the Equality Act. It was a complaint about accepting another person's version over his own, not an allegation of discrimination, and therefore could not meet the legal definition of a protected act under s.27(2)(d).

The claimant alleged three instances of indirect religious discrimination relating to occupational health appointments, appeal timing, and rearranging hearings. The tribunal found the claimant could not demonstrate group disadvantage or show how these practices would adversely affect Muslims compared to employees of other faiths. Without evidence of disproportionate impact on the protected group, the claims had no reasonable prospects of success.

The alleged protected disclosure was an email stating that disingenuousness at tribunals could have criminal implications. The tribunal found this was merely a warning about the importance of truthfulness, not a disclosure of information tending to show a criminal offence had been, was being, or was likely to be committed as required by s.43B ERA 1996. It came nowhere near meeting the legal test for a protected disclosure.

The claimant, employed on a zero-hours contract, claimed he should be paid for writing emails outside work hours, including about his grievance. The tribunal found he could not point to any contractual term requiring payment for such emails and the claim had no reasonable prospects of success.

The claimant withdrew the allegation that he made a protected disclosure in his 17 November 2024 email to Marc Ramsbottom at Peninsula, and it was dismissed on withdrawal.