Case 1801140/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs X v Delta Academies Trust — 2021
- Case reference
- 1801140/2020
- Decision date
- 29 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Parkin Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs X
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 23 March 2021 before Employment Judge Parkin, the tribunal considered the respondent's applications to strike out the discrimination claims as out of time and the parties' competing strike-out and deposit applications. The claimant, a teaching assistant employed by Delta Academies Trust from 3 February 2016 until September 2019, relied on her suspension on 2 May 2019, an alleged remark on 20 May 2019, and her dismissal by letter dated 16 September 2019.
The tribunal dismissed the harassment allegation at paragraph 13.3, which concerned the 20 May 2019 comment. It found that this was a one-off act, not a continuing act, so Early Conciliation should have begun by 19 August 2019. Although the claimant relied on medical evidence about low mood, anxiety, depression and related medication, the tribunal held that the claim was well out of time and that it was not just and equitable to permit it to proceed.
By contrast, the tribunal held that the suspension and barring allegations, and the direct discrimination claims linked to the dismissal, were closely associated with the eventual dismissal and were capable of amounting to an act extending over a period. In the alternative, it was just and equitable to allow those claims, together with the unfair dismissal claim, to proceed to a final hearing. The respondent's strike-out and deposit applications were refused, as were the claimant's applications to strike out the response or obtain a deposit order, because the claims turned on disputed facts that could not be summarily resolved on the papers.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Paragraph 13.1 harassment allegation relating to suspension and barring from the school site, said to involve race and religion. The tribunal held it was closely associated with the dismissal and could proceed to a final hearing. | Other | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination allegations at paragraphs 13.2 and 13.4, including the complaint that Child A was not suspended and the dismissal allegation. The respondent's strike-out and deposit applications were refused and the claims were allowed to proceed. | Other | Race | — |
| Harassment | Paragraph 13.3 allegation concerning the 20 May 2019 comment by RE. The tribunal treated it as a one-off act, found it was presented out of time, and held it was not just and equitable to allow it to proceed. The claimant had also framed the same allegation as direct religious discrimination. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Direct religious discrimination allegation based on the dismissal, as discussed in paragraph 13.4 and the reasons at paragraph 10.1. The tribunal held that it could proceed alongside the unfair dismissal claim. | Other | Religion or belief | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim was not struck out and no deposit order was made. It was permitted to proceed to a final hearing. |
Legal tests applied
9 references- section 123(3) Equality Act 2010 continuing act
- section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010 just and equitable extension
- section 26 Equality Act 2010 harassment
- section 13 Equality Act 2010 direct discrimination
- section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- rule 37 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 strike out
- rule 39 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 deposit order
- section 136(2) Equality Act 2010 burden of proof
- range of reasonable responses
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.