Claimant v GreenSquare Group Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that while the claimant had done protected acts (grievances alleging disability discrimination, ACAS referrals), the dismissal was not because of those acts. The overwhelming reason for dismissal was poor performance, deteriorating through 2019-2020, along with poor attitude and attendance. Mr Lillis's reference to the claimant as a 'complainer' related to the manner and frequency of complaints generally, not their protected Equality Act content. The tribunal concluded the protected acts were not an effective or substantial cause of dismissal.
Facts
Claimant, a Community Involvement Officer for a housing provider from May 2018 to April 2020, had declared Asperger's syndrome on appointment but needed no adjustments initially. Performance issues emerged from early 2019, compounded by disputes over travel expenses and failure to secure internal promotions. He raised grievances in November and December 2019 alleging disability discrimination and contacted ACAS twice. After poor performance ratings and 17% sickness absence, he was dismissed by HR on 8 April 2020 without formal procedure, with reference to poor performance, attendance and attitude, and being a 'complainer'. His appeal was rejected.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the victimisation claim. While the claimant had done protected acts (grievances alleging disability discrimination and ACAS referrals), and the dismissal process was poor, the tribunal found the real reason for dismissal was consistently poor performance documented from 2019, combined with poor attendance (17% absence) and attitude. The reference to being a 'complainer' related to the manner and frequency of complaints generally, not their protected Equality Act content, following Martin v Devonshire.
Practical note
Even where dismissal is procedurally flawed and occurs after protected acts, a victimisation claim will fail if the employer can show that poor performance, not the protected acts themselves, was the real and substantial reason for dismissal.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1404086/2020
- Decision date
- 21 March 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- real estate
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Community Involvement Officer
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No