Case 8001755/2024 · Employment Tribunal
: J Anderson W Muir Ms Lauren Maynard v M Group Services Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 8001755/2024
- Decision date
- 15 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge C McManus Members
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- J Anderson, W Muir
Parties
2 namedClaimant
: J Anderson W Muir Ms Lauren Maynard
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant joined the respondent through an agency on 30 November 2020 and was employed directly from 1 February 2021. She was initially a Project Co-ordinator on GBP 25,350, promoted to Project Specialist on 1 October 2021 at GBP 29,153, and after passing the APM qualification in June 2023 her salary increased to GBP 40,028 from 1 July 2023. When she moved into the Project Manager role in December 2023, the respondent did not grant a further immediate increase because her pay was already within the Project Manager band and she had received two increases in the preceding nine months.
On the equal pay and equal value complaints, the tribunal accepted the respondent's material factor defence and found that the pay differences were explained by experience in the role, career pathway level, qualifications, portfolio size and complexity, performance, prior out-of-cycle pay reviews, and prior pay on recruitment, rather than sex. The direct sex discrimination claim failed for the same reason. The direct race discrimination claim also failed: the tribunal did not find facts from which race discrimination could be inferred in relation to pay or alleged training opportunities, and it noted that the comparator relied on for training was in a more senior role.
On harassment and victimisation, the tribunal accepted that racist comments had been complained of in the shared canteen and investigated, but found that the claimant was not present when the comments were made and did not prove conduct meeting section 26. It preferred Pamela Savill's evidence that the February 2024 meetings were about equal pay, not race, so the claimant did not prove a protected act of race complaint in February 2024 and did not prove any detriment because of the protected acts. The breach of contract claim for notice pay failed because she resigned on 13 September 2024 without giving the contractual month's notice, and the holiday pay complaint was withdrawn during the hearing. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | Equal pay complaint; the tribunal held the respondent proved a material factor defence. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Equal value complaint; dismissed on the same pay-disparity evidence and not taken forward to a separate equal-value hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Claim based on being paid less than Comparator 1 and Comparator 2; the tribunal found the pay differences were not because of sex. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | Claim based on lower pay and fewer training opportunities compared with Comparators 1, 2 and 3; the tribunal found no facts from which race discrimination could be inferred. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Claim concerned alleged racist comments in a shared canteen and the respondent's response; the tribunal found the section 26 test was not met. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal found the protected acts were the equal pay complaints on 13 and 22 February 2024, but no detriment because of those acts was proved. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract |
Legal tests applied
13 references- section 66 Equality Act 2010 sex equality clause
- section 69 Equality Act 2010 material factor defence
- Perkins v Marston (Holdings) Ltd
- Glasgow City Council v Marshall
- BMC Software Ltd v Shaikh
- McNeil v Revenue and Customs Commissioners
- Dobson v North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust
- Essop v Home Office; Naeem v Secretary of State for Justice
- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010 / Igen v Wong / Madarassy v Nomura International plc
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.