Lawyers for Google have said that a former employee is trying to "sully" the tech giant's name by claiming he and two other black colleagues lost their jobs because of alleged racial discrimination in its performance management processes.
Former accounts strategist Eyob Van Haute has brought a complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998 alleging discrimination on the grounds of his race, following his dismissal on performance grounds in July 2025.
Mr Van Haute told the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) today 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.
"I think my dismissal was not the result of fair and consistent assessment of performance," Mr Van Haute told the Workplace Relations Commission today.
"I'm black. I was dismissed. The question is whether I was treated less favourably than equivalent colleagues," he said.
Mr Van Haute said he inherited a client portfolio worth between €7-8m with "no handover" from his predecessor, who had been on sabbatical, he said.
"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% of the clients assigned within a fortnight, but 15 of his 55 assigned clients were "not workable", he said.
Mr Van Haute said that in the first quarter of 2025 he secured an overall "core score" of 93%. He said a score below 90% would have yielded a "low performer" classification - but he was nevertheless placed in a performance improvement plan (PIP), he said.
"One comparator recorded 70% 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".
Mr Van Haute said that during one of two PIPs, 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", he said.
"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, Mr van Haute said it was.
Rosemary Mallon BL, instructed by Colum Holland of Matheson Solicitors for the respondent, moved an application that Ms Jones 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.
Ms Mallon added that Mr 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 onto a second PIP and failed that while a probationary employee. He's unhappy, he's disgruntled with the outcome," Ms 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.
"I'm not the only black person who was exited under similar circumstance," Mr Van Haute said.
He said his two comparators were not in the same protected category and had "clearly had also not hit their target".
Ms Mallon objected and said: "Sorry, we're not getting into new evidence."
With nearly 7,000 staff in Ireland, Mr Van Haute "mentions two black employees he’s aware of that were dismissed", counsel said.
"He hasn’t given names, he's just made this wide assertion claiming discrimination," she added.
"He's engaging in historical revisionism in an attempt to sully the good name of the company, Google," she added.
Ms Jones said she needed more time to consider the application.
She said she would write to the parties with her decision and to state whether she would call a further hearing on Mr Van Haute's complaint.
