Shortly after the start of his employment the Claimant was dismissed. The Respondent’s case was that this was because the manager who hired him considered that the Claimant had misled him, in the recruitment process; specifically, that the Claimant had secured an improved financial offer, on the basis that he would be giving up a secure job and salary, whereas his manager later learned that his former employment had in fact ended the previous year. The ET dismissed complaints of victimisation in relation to the dismissal and the subsequent failure of the respondent to progress the Claimant’s internal appeal against dismissal. The protected act was an Equality Act claim brought against the Claimant’s former employer. The ET found that the manager had learned of that claim prior to the dismissal. However, it was not part of the reasons for the dismissal. The victimisation claim in relation to the appeal also failed. The claimant appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal in part. The ET’s decision in respect of the victimisation complaint concerning the dismissal was not perverse. Nor was it not Meek-compliant. The ET's decision in relation to the victimisation complaint regarding failure to progress the appeal was also not perverse. But it was non-Meek-compliant, specifically in relation to the manager’s failure to action the appeal email that was sent to him. That complaint was therefore remitted for further consideration by the same tribunal.