Mrs S Metcalfe v North Wales Women’s Centre Heard: via telephone — 2020

This was a preliminary hearing on 25 June 2020 before Employment Judge S Jenkins, heard by telephone, and no evidence was taken. The tribunal was dealing with the claimant's application to amend her claim form, rather than the substantive merits of unfair dismissal or disability discrimination. The original claim form, presented on 23 April 2020, described claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination arising from the claimant's sensitivity to light, her migraines, the use of fluorescent lighting at work, and the later termination of her employment.

The claimant sought to clarify that her unfair dismissal claim related to an actual dismissal, not a constructive dismissal, and to add or clarify claims under sections 13, 15, 19, 20/21, 26 and 27 of the Equality Act 2010. The respondent accepted that claims under sections 15, 19 and 20/21 could be discerned from the original claim form, but opposed the addition of sections 13, 26 and 27 on the basis that they were not properly pleaded and that there would be prejudice in having to meet additional claims. The tribunal applied Cocking, Selkent and the Presidential Guidance Note on case management, and took account of the time-limit position under section 207B ERA 1996 following ACAS early conciliation from 4 March 2020 to 18 April 2020.

The tribunal found that the original claim form, although brief and prepared without legal advice, sufficiently indicated claims under sections 13, 15, 19, 20/21 and 26 because the core complaint concerned the reinstatement of fluorescent lighting in January 2020 and the claimant's contention that her dismissal was linked to disability and association with her daughter. It considered that the respondent would face little additional prejudice because it already had to deal with the same factual background for the discernible discrimination claims. On victimisation, the tribunal treated the matter separately because the original form did not clearly identify a protected act, but it accepted the claimant's clarification that she had complained to the Managing Director on 7 January 2020 about the lighting and reasonable adjustments.

The tribunal held that the victimisation amendment was also in time when assessed under section 207B(3) ERA 1996, because as at 18 June 2020 the claimant could still have presented a fresh claim within the extended time period. The application to amend was therefore granted in its entirety. No findings were made on liability, and no remedy was awarded.