Case 1306659/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Blake v Infosys BPM Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1306659/2020
- Decision date
- 27 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Flood Appearance
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Blake
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented complaints of race discrimination, unfair constructive dismissal and breach of contract on 20 July 2020. At the hearing she confirmed that she was not pursuing indirect race discrimination, so that part of the case was treated as withdrawn. The tribunal recorded that her employment began on 20 May 2019 and ended on 5 December 2019, and that the relevant complaints arose during that employment, with the last alleged discriminatory act said to be on 28 November 2019.
The unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed because the claimant had less than two years' continuous employment and none of the statutory exceptions to the qualifying period in s.108 ERA 1996 applied. The tribunal found that the claim form did not disclose any basis for automatic unfair dismissal, so she was not entitled to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim.
The race discrimination and race-related harassment complaints were dismissed as out of time. The tribunal found that the primary limitation period expired on 27 February 2020, that ACAS early conciliation began on 11 June 2020, and that the claim form was presented on 20 July 2020. It accepted that the respondent had not progressed the grievance after the January 2020 meeting, but held that the claimant had not adequately explained why she took no steps between February and June 2020, and that the balance of prejudice did not justify extending time as just and equitable. The application to amend the claim to add further race discrimination, race-related harassment and victimisation allegations was refused because the proposed amendments were substantial, still unclear, and raised further out-of-time issues. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The claimant confirmed at the hearing that she was not pursuing an indirect race discrimination complaint, and that aspect was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claim form described the dismissal complaint as unfair constructive dismissal, but the tribunal dealt with it as an unfair dismissal claim. It was dismissed because the claimant had less than two years' continuous employment and no statutory exception under s.108 ERA 1996 applied. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination complaints were dismissed as out of time. The tribunal held that the claimant had not shown it was just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to race was dismissed as out of time on the same just and equitable limitation analysis. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.108 ERA 1996 two-year qualifying period
- s.123 Equality Act 2010 just and equitable extension
- s.40B Equality Act 2010 ACAS early conciliation extension
- British Coal v Keeble / Afolabi factors
- Robertson and Bexley Community Centre v Leisure Link
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University v Morgan
- Adedeji v University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Apelogun-Gabriels v London Borough of Lambeth
- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.