Case 1601135/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Griffiths-Baker v Cardiff Metropolitan University and 5 others — 2021
- Case reference
- 1601135/2020
- Decision date
- 12 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins Representation
Parties
7 namedClaimant
Ms J Griffiths-Baker
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing on 4 and 5 February 2021 was dealt with on interlocutory issues rather than a merits hearing, and the tribunal made no findings of fact because no evidence was heard. The Claimant unconditionally withdrew her section 15 Equality Act 2010 claim for discrimination arising from disability and her sections 20/21 claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments. Those claims were therefore dismissed on withdrawal.
The Fifth and Sixth Respondents applied to strike out, or alternatively for a deposit order in relation to, the Claimant's section 60 EqA complaint about health questions said to have been asked in recruitment. Applying the authorities on strike out in discrimination cases, including Anyanwu, Ahir, Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board v Ferguson and Balls, the tribunal took the Claimant's case at its highest but concluded that the claim could not succeed on the pleaded case.
The tribunal accepted the Respondents' timing point: the Claimant had been offered work on 18 December 2019, a contract had been entered into on 10 January 2020, and the alleged enquiries relied on for the section 60 claim were said to have been made on 28 January 2020. Because section 60(1) prohibits questions about an applicant's health before work is offered, the tribunal held that the claim against the Fifth and Sixth Respondents had no reasonable prospect of success and struck it out under Rule 37. It also noted that enforcement of section 60(1) lies with the Equality and Human Rights Commission under section 60(2), and that its ruling did not prevent the underlying factual allegations being relied on in any remaining discrimination claims if relevant.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 EqA 2010 claim for discrimination arising from disability against all Respondents. The Claimant confirmed at the hearing that it was withdrawn unconditionally, and the tribunal ordered it dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Sections 20/21 EqA 2010 claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments against all Respondents. The Claimant confirmed at the hearing that it was withdrawn unconditionally, and the tribunal ordered it dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Other | Section 60 EqA 2010 complaint against the Fifth and Sixth Respondents about alleged pre-offer health questions. It was struck out under Rule 37 as having no reasonable prospect of success because the pleaded enquiries were said to have been made after work had already been offered. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union
- Ahir v British Airways plc
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board v Ferguson
- Balls v Downham Market High School and College
- Van Rensburg v The Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- Rule 37 strike out
- Rule 39 deposit order
- section 60 EqA 2010
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.