Ms L McLean v Siemans Mobility Limited — 2021

The Tribunal (Judge Mensah sitting with members Ms Ellis and Ms Chavda) dismissed all of the Claimant's complaints. Claims of protected disclosure detriment, victimisation detriment and direct sex discrimination were each found not to be made out on the evidence. The Tribunal also refused two amendment applications made by the Claimant at the start of the hearing, applying the Selkent and Vaughan v Modality Partnership guidance, on the basis that the proposed amendments were not sufficiently particularised, were raised late despite case management orders and an unless order, and would cause significant prejudice to the Respondent.

On the direct sex discrimination allegations (covering matters such as authorisation of time sheets, handling of pay discrepancy concerns and termination of contract), the Tribunal found the Claimant was not treated less favourably than her comparators and there was no evidence that any difference in treatment was because she was a woman. The Tribunal also concluded there was no detriment to the Claimant in respect of the matters relied upon.

On jurisdiction, the Tribunal held that a number of the complaints had been presented outside the time limits in s.123 Equality Act 2010 and s.48 Employment Rights Act 1996. It declined to extend time, finding the Claimant had given no adequate explanation for the delay; while it accepted that close family bereavements could in principle affect a person's ability to bring a claim, there was inadequate evidence in this case that this had prevented her from doing so, particularly as she had been able to apply for new jobs and obtain legal advice during the relevant period.