Claimant v Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult

The tribunal found that the claimant was unable to identify a valid comparator who was or would have been less favourably treated. While treatment by managers was acknowledged, there was no evidence to show it was related to the protected characteristic of race. The claimant failed to shift the burden of proof under section 136 EqA.

The tribunal acknowledged the claimant received treatment that could be considered detrimental or unfavourable, but found no connection between this conduct and the protected characteristic of race. The legal requirement under section 26 that conduct be 'related to' a protected characteristic was not satisfied.

The tribunal found the claimant's grievance was not a 'protected act' as defined in section 27 EqA. Even if it had been, there was no evidence to suggest a connection between the grievance and the alleged detriment (non-payment of bonus).

The tribunal found the claimant had no legitimate expectation of a bonus because the respondent's policy clearly stated that no employee under notice would receive one. Payment was discretionary and the policy was applied consistently across all employees including the claimant.

The tribunal found the claimant had no contractual right to a bonus. Payment of bonuses was clearly discretionary under all versions of the Total Reward Policy. There was no breach of contract in relation to bonus payment or the verbal confirmation of probation extension.