In Person For the v Respondent — 2019

This was a preliminary hearing on limitation and strike out. The claimant represented herself; the respondent was represented by counsel. No oral evidence was taken and the tribunal considered the claimant's case at its highest. The claimant had been dismissed on 5 April 2018, but the allegations before the tribunal concerned earlier events, including matters said to have occurred between 2012 and 2017.

On time limits, the tribunal held that the sex discrimination allegations, including harassment, and the complaint about not providing a lumbar cushion were presented outside the three-month primary limitation period. It rejected the claimant's case for a continuing act under Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Comr. and found it was not just and equitable to extend time under section 123 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had had significant health difficulties, but found that any explanation for delay did not extend beyond her return to work in February 2015. It noted that she had prepared a detailed grievance appeal, had been aware of employment tribunal time limits by then, and had the respondent's grievance outcome by September 2015 or, at the latest, December 2015.

The tribunal also rejected the claimant's continuing-act and cover-up arguments. It found no sufficient nexus between the earlier sex-related allegations and later events such as the email to the then CEO or the respondent's county court application for £845.90 and £60 costs. It concluded that the passage of time would prejudice the respondent because of witness and document difficulties, and that this balance favoured the respondent. On the reasonable adjustment complaints, the tribunal held that a desktop assessment was not itself an adjustment, applying Tarbuck v Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd, and that the replacement-cushion complaint had no reasonable prospect of success because the claimant was suspended at the time and the cushion would not have enabled her to work.