Ms A Kvedariene v Foundever UK Ltd — 2025

Ms Kvedariene brought claims that included unfair dismissal and sex discrimination, but this hearing was concerned only with limitation issues for two sex discrimination complaints. The complaints were about refusals of a flexible working request made between February 2021 and April 2022, and a refusal of leave in July 2022 for her son's cardiologist appointment abroad. The tribunal treated the complaints as indirect sex discrimination claims for the purposes of the limitation exercise.

The tribunal found both discrimination complaints were out of time under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. It held that time for the flexible-working complaint ended at latest in July 2022, making the October 2023 claim at least 15 months late, and that time for the leave complaint expired in October 2022, making that complaint around 12 months late. It decided not to determine whether the matters formed a continuing act, because doing so would have required findings on contested facts and unlawful discrimination without the necessary evidence at this stage.

On the flexible-working complaint, the tribunal extended time on the just and equitable basis. It accepted the claimant delayed because she chose not to pursue proceedings while she remained employed, so as not to damage the employment relationship, but it rejected her evidence that she believed as a matter of law she could not bring a claim until employment ended. In balancing hardship and prejudice, the tribunal noted that the complaint appeared arguable: the apparent PCP was a requirement to work 12pm to 9pm, and the tribunal observed that women workers shoulder a greater burden of childcare responsibilities. It considered the respondent's prejudice limited because the issue concerned the general business need for the hours rather than a single isolated decision.

On the leave complaint, the tribunal refused to extend time. It considered that the claimant would probably struggle to show group disadvantage for women workers from a requirement to be at work rather than on leave in the particular circumstances of an overseas medical appointment for her son, and that any justification issue would likely be straightforward. It also accepted the respondent's point that evidence from Ms Redpath would be difficult to obtain. The practical effect of the decision was that only the flexible-working complaint was allowed to proceed.