John Ferguson v Sir Robert Woodard Academy — 2021

The claimant, John Ferguson, brought a disability discrimination complaint which the tribunal identified as a failure to make reasonable adjustments arising from the alleged failure to implement recommendations in an occupational health report. The tribunal found that the relevant events occurred by the end of December 2019 at the latest, and that even taking the most favourable date the claim was still presented out of time. On that basis, the tribunal concluded that limitation expired before ACAS conciliation began on 19 August 2020 and before the claim form was presented on 11 October 2020.

The tribunal considered whether the matter involved conduct extending over a period, but held that it did not. Even if it had, the tribunal found the period would have ended at the start of February 2020 when the claimant accepted the adjustments had been implemented, which would still have left the claim several months late. Applying the discretion under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010, and the guidance it cited including Robertson, Pathan, British Coal v Keeble, Southwark v Afolabi, DCA v Jones, and Abertawe Bro Morgannwg v Morgan, the tribunal held that it was not just and equitable to extend time.

In reaching that conclusion the tribunal accepted that the claimant had serious personal circumstances, including repeated hospital admissions for his daughter, but found that from February 2020 onwards he was working and able to engage with the process. It found he was aware of his Equality Act rights, had researched the tribunal process in a matter of minutes, and was not persuaded that he had received incorrect advice from ACAS or remained ignorant of the limitation period after August 2020. The tribunal also accepted that the respondent had not misled him or failed to cooperate.

The tribunal considered the merits only at a broad level and said that, even taking the claimant’s case at its highest, it was not obviously strong. It noted that the alleged period of failure was short, the respondent had sought to discuss the occupational health report before Christmas 2019, the claimant was off work for part of January 2020, and by February 2020 the adjustments had been put in place and the claimant appeared content with them. The final decision was that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint.