Case 1800102/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Cambian Childcare Ltd and others — 2022
- Case reference
- 1800102/2022
- Decision date
- 8 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shore Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal accepted that Mrs Bano met the definition of a disabled person under section 6 Equality Act 2010. It recorded that she worked for Cambian Childcare Limited as a residential care worker from 12 September 2018 until her effective date of termination on 28 August 2021, and that early conciliation began and a certificate issued on 14 January 2022 before the ET1 was presented on 17 January 2022.
The unfair dismissal claim was held to be out of time. The tribunal found that the limitation date was 27 November 2021 and that it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. In reaching that conclusion it relied on the claimant's evidence that she had been advised by a full-time trade union official from around March 2021, her awareness of employment rights and tribunal claims, and its rejection of her explanation that she was waiting for the grievance outcome. The tribunal accepted that the respondent's grievance investigation took an unreasonable amount of time, but found that the respondent engaged with her while she chased updates and did not mislead her about the running of time.
The race harassment claim, said to arise from an incident on 3 March 2021 and including criticism about the use of Punjabi at work, was found not to form part of a connected series of acts. It was therefore treated as having been presented more than six months out of time, and the tribunal refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis.
For the disability complaints, the tribunal gave the claimant the benefit of the doubt that the allegations could form a connected series and treated 28 August 2021 as the end point for limitation purposes. Even so, it found that it would not be just and equitable to extend time for the section 15 claim about refusal of a full-time post on 19 February 2021, the section 20 and 21 reasonable-adjustments claim about working more than 8.5 hours without a break, and the two disability harassment allegations on 23 July 2021 and 10 August 2021. The tribunal relied on the length and reasons for the delay, the claimant's union advice and knowledge of time limits, the absence of medical or social circumstances preventing issue, and the prejudice to the respondents. All claims were struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim under section 95 ERA 1996. The effective date of termination was 28 August 2021, the limitation date was 27 November 2021, and the ET1 was presented on 17 January 2022. | Struck out | — | — |
| Harassment | Race-related harassment under section 26 EqA 2010 concerning the 3 March 2021 allegation, including criticism about using Punjabi at work. The tribunal found it was not part of a connected series of events and refused to extend time. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Harassment | Disability-related harassment under section 26 EqA 2010 concerning the 23 July 2021 allegation. The tribunal accepted the disability allegations could be treated as a connected series but refused a just and equitable extension of time. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Disability-related harassment under section 26 EqA 2010 concerning the 10 August 2021 allegation. The tribunal accepted the disability allegations could be treated as a connected series but refused a just and equitable extension of time. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim under section 15 EqA 2010 (discrimination arising from disability) relating to the 19 February 2021 refusal of a full-time post. Struck out as out of time. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.111 ERA 1996 reasonably practicable test
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- Schultz v Esso Petroleum Ltd
- Bodha (Vishnudut) v Hampshire Area Health Authority
- s.123 EqA 2010 just and equitable test
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- London Borough of Southwark v Afolabi
- Wells Cathedral v Souter
- s.6 Equality Act 2010 disability definition
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.