Dr S Rifet v University of Bradford — 2022

This was a preliminary hearing on whether it was just and equitable to extend time for Dr S Rifet’s claims against the University of Bradford. The claimant said her complaints arose from treatment during and after her return from maternity leave, and the Tribunal recorded complaints of sex, race, maternity and disability discrimination. The claimant lodged her ET1 on 11 March 2021, after the primary limitation period had expired on the Tribunal’s assumption that the last potentially discriminatory act was in July 2020.

The Tribunal applied section 123 Equality Act 2010 and the authorities it cited on the just and equitable discretion, including Robertson v Bexley Community Centre, British Coal Corporation v Keeble, Southwark LBC v Afolabi and Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust. It considered the claimant’s reasons for delay: her son’s health problems, her anxiety and depression, and her asserted lack of awareness that she could bring an Employment Tribunal claim. The Tribunal accepted that the claimant’s son had significant health issues between May and September 2020 and that this materially affected her ability to claim during that period. It also accepted that the claimant was suffering from anxiety and depression from May 2020 to March 2021, but found that those issues did not in themselves prevent her from lodging a claim.

The Tribunal found that the claimant’s ignorance of Employment Tribunal rights was not reasonable in light of her education, research experience, work in a university setting and support from a trade union from July 2020 onwards. It found that she could have investigated her rights or obtained advice earlier, and that her explanation for waiting until March 2021 was unsatisfactory. The Tribunal also found prejudice to the respondent from the delay because witnesses were less likely to be available and memories were likely to have faded. It concluded that it was not just and equitable to extend time, so the claim was out of time and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider it.