Claimant v M Group Services Ltd

The tribunal found that the respondent proved a material factor defence: the differences in pay between the claimant and her male comparators were due to experience, qualifications, portfolio complexity/value, and performance, not sex. The claimant had less PM experience, lower qualifications than comparators (who had degrees including APM modules), and smaller/less complex portfolios. The respondent showed males and females were at all salary levels within the PM band.

The claim was based on lower pay compared to male comparators. Because the tribunal found the pay differences were due to material factors unrelated to sex, the claimant was not less favourably treated because of her sex. The respondent's material factor defence negated the sex discrimination claim.

The claimant alleged lower pay and fewer training opportunities due to her race (Caribbean Scottish). The tribunal found she did not prove primary facts from which discrimination could be inferred. The pay differences were explained by material factors. There was no evidence she was put forward for training at all, and the female comparator she relied on was in a more senior role. The claimant failed to meet the initial burden of proof.

The claimant alleged racist comments in a shared canteen and that not being interviewed in the investigation was harassment. The tribunal found she was not interviewed because she was not present when the comments were made. The respondent investigated and took disciplinary action. The tribunal did not find the claimant credible when she claimed racist comments were made in her presence, noting inconsistencies and that she had invited the alleged perpetrator to her son's birthday party. Taking s.26(4) factors into account, the conduct did not have the requisite effect.

The tribunal accepted the claimant did protected acts on 13 and 22 February 2024 by raising equal pay concerns. However, she did not prove the alleged detriments (not being interviewed for the racism investigation; not being contacted when on sick leave). She was not interviewed because she was not present at the canteen incident. The tribunal found there was contact when she started sick leave, preferring the respondent's credible evidence. The claimant failed to prove facts from which victimisation could be inferred.

The claimant claimed unpaid notice pay. The tribunal found she resigned with less than the contractually required one month's notice (13 Sept for 1 Oct start date), acting in breach of contract. The respondent agreed to accept 30 Sept as her termination date. The respondent was entitled to pay only statutory sick pay during the notice period and the claimant was not entitled to notice pay.

The claimant initially claimed unpaid holiday pay but during the hearing accepted that holidays accrue and that she had taken more holidays than she had accrued as at the termination date. She withdrew the claim.