Claimant v Mitie Limited

The Claimant failed to establish any connection between the alleged conduct and his race (White Turkish Kurd). The evidence showed that KB treated officers of various races and ages poorly, not targeting any particular racial group. The Claimant could not identify any proper comparator of different race treated more favourably. No prima facie case established.

The tribunal found the key allegation of ageist comments in June 2022 not proved. KB and Carl Patten denied the comments were made, and the Claimant never mentioned them until his 2025 witness statement despite raising grievances over three years. The specific incidents relied upon showed no discernible connection to the Claimant's age (59 years). No prima facie case established.

While certain conduct by KB (such as shouting on 28 June 2024) was unwanted, the Claimant failed to prove it was related to his race. The evidence showed KB behaved similarly to officers of various races. The Claimant did not discharge the initial burden of proof under s.136 Equality Act.

The Claimant did not prove the alleged ageist comments were made, and the other conduct relied upon showed no connection to age. The tribunal found no evidence the conduct was related to the protected characteristic of age.

The claim for 4 days' pay related to loss of salary when the Claimant went home upset after a shift change on 4 December 2023. As the Claimant did not prove the shift change was unlawful discrimination, he was not entitled to remedy for this voluntary loss of earnings.