A former Google employee who claimed he and two other black colleagues lost their jobs because of alleged racial discrimination in the performance management processes of its Dublin office has failed in an equality claim.
The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has rejected a complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998 by former accounts strategist, Eyob Van Haute in a decision published on Tuesday.
An adjudicator agreed with lawyers for the tech giant that Van Haute had failed to put forward evidence to establish enough of an inference of discrimination to require a rebuttal from his former employer.
Van Haute told the Workplace Relations Commission in March that he was put on the first of two performance improvement plans in 2025, despite scoring better than another colleague who was not subject to the same formal process.
READ MORE
“I think my dismissal was not the result of fair and consistent assessment of performance,” Van Haute told the WRC. “I’m black. I was dismissed. The question is whether I was treated less favourably than equivalent colleagues.”
Van Haute said he inherited a client portfolio worth between €7 million and €8 million with “no handover” from his predecessor, who had been on sabbatical.
“I was not stepping into active relationships, but situations where engagement had already declined,” he said. Clients had not received support for “one or more quarters” from the previous incumbent, while some were “unresponsive” and “no longer needed support”, he said.
He said it was “unachievable” to meet a company target of engaging with 90 per cent of the clients assigned within a fortnight, and that 15 of his 55 assigned clients were “not workable”.
Van Haute said that in the first quarter of 2025, he secured an overall “core score” of 93 per cent. He said a score below 90 per cent would have yielded a “low performer” classification, but he was nevertheless placed in a performance improvement plan (PIP).
“One comparator recorded 70 per cent in Q1 and was not placed on a performance plan,” he said.
He said the company referred to “context” to “explain weaker performance” on the part of other staff he had identified and that it did so “selectively”.
During one of two PIPs, Van Haute said he was left without an active sales coach for 95 days. His former employer “dismissed” this as a factor by “referring to support from my manager and peers”.
“I did not begin this process asserting discrimination; that emerged over time. I also became aware that multiple employees who exited the organisation under similar circumstances were black,” he said.
When adjudication officer Orla Jones asked whether that was his evidence on the claim, Van Haute said it was.
Rosemary Mallon, instructed by Colum Holland of Matheson Solicitors for the respondent, moved an application that the adjudicator move directly to conclude the taking of evidence and go straight to a decision.
She argued that the complainant had “failed to bring a prima facie case” before the tribunal on the basis of his direct evidence.
“His direct evidence is, at its height, full of assertions, assumptions and presumptions, but backed up with no evidence. He made this wild accusation that other people of colour were treated the same way,” she said.
Mallon added that Van Haute had only given the first name of one alleged comparator and had not identified anyone he claimed had discriminated against him.
“He was on a PIP and then he went on to a second PIP and failed that while a probationary employee. He’s unhappy, he’s disgruntled with the outcome,” Mallon said.
“I say when you look back over the notes of his evidence, there is no way, in my respectful submission that he could satisfy the prima facie test,” she added.
In her decision, Jones found that Van Haute “has not established primary facts capable of raising an inference of discrimination on race grounds”.
“I therefore find that the respondent did not discriminate against the complainant,” she wrote, rejecting the claim.
