Mr G Gyimah v Commerzbank AG and 4 others — 2020

The claimant worked in the respondent's financial crime quality assurance team from July 2018. The tribunal accepted that the Q1 2019 KYC QA report gave rise to a serious concern because it differed materially from the Skilled Person's findings and from Bastian Buhlmann's 4-eye review. The tribunal found that Robert McMillan's response to that report, including involving Buhlmann in the review and later in the appraisal process, was driven by performance concerns and workload issues rather than race, although it criticised parts of the process as poor and lacking transparency.

The tribunal found that the claimant was given opportunities to discuss his achievements and the report issue, but that he did not make a detailed contemporaneous challenge to Buhlmann's review. It held that McMillan's decision to ask the claimant to stop supporting the Anti-Fraud Lead, to give him a reduced appraisal and to reduce his bonus followed the report and performance concerns. It also found that some HR handling was sloppy or unreasonable, including the telephone communication of the bonus while the claimant was off sick and the handling of company sick pay, but it did not infer race from those matters.

On the harassment allegations, the tribunal accepted that Buhlmann made two chicken-related remarks, but found they were made because the claimant had repeatedly referred to liking chicken, not because of any racial stereotype. It accepted that the claimant was upset, but held that the comments did not have the requisite purpose or effect under section 26 Equality Act 2010 and were not related to race. The tribunal also found that David Clapham's grievance appeal questions were proper attempts to test the evidence, not harassment.

On victimisation, the claimant's 10 February 2020 grievance was a protected act, but none of the alleged detriments were shown to be because of that grievance. The tribunal held that the grievance outcome letter and appeal outcome were reasonable, that the protected act did not drive the bonus decision, the sick pay change, or the handling of the appeal, and that the claimant's resignation on 12 June 2020 did not follow a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. All claims were dismissed.