Dr M Yousef v Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult — 2025

Dr M Yousef, who identified as Arab for the purposes of the race claims, brought complaints arising from two sets of events: the March 2023 probation extension process and the July 2024 non-payment of a discretionary bonus. The tribunal held that the complaints about the 2023 events were initially out of time, but extended time under s123 EqA after applying the factors identified in British Coal Corporation v Keeble and DPP v Marshall, and then dealt with those complaints on their merits.

On direct race discrimination, the tribunal accepted much of the claimant's account of the January to March 2023 exchanges with Mr Bannister and the 13 March 2023 meeting with Mr Bannister and Mr Quinn, including the criticism of his work and the omission of a confirming letter. It nevertheless found that he had not shown less favourable treatment because of race: the comparator relied on for the probation complaint was not materially similar, and the evidence pointed to Mr Bannister's frustration with perceived lack of progress rather than race. The tribunal reached the same conclusion in relation to the July 2024 bonus dispute, finding that the claimant was not treated less favourably than suitable comparators and that the bonus was withheld under the respondent's eligibility rules.

On harassment, the tribunal found that the January and February 2023 communications, the 13 March 2023 meeting, and the failure to send a letter were unwanted and that the 13 March meeting created an intimidating and humiliating environment for the claimant while it was taking place. It dismissed the claim because the conduct was not related to race within s26 EqA and was instead directed at perceived performance issues. It also rejected victimisation: the 16 March 2023 grievance was not treated as a protected act alleging an Equality Act contravention, and the later bonus dispute was found to have turned on the neutral application of the scheme rather than any reaction to the grievance.

The unlawful deduction from wages and breach of contract claims, both based on the July 2024 bonus, were also dismissed. The tribunal held that the scheme was discretionary, that the claimant was not eligible while serving notice on the payment date, that he therefore had no entitlement or legitimate expectation of payment, and that no express or implied contractual term required the respondent to pay the bonus. No remedy was awarded.