Case 1802968/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Elmi v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1802968/2020
- Decision date
- 10 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Palca
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Elmi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by Royal Mail Group Limited as an Operational Postal Grade mail sorter until her employment ended on 29 November 2019. She presented her claim on 9 June 2020 after early conciliation from 13 May 2020 to 4 June 2020. The tribunal considered complaints of unfair dismissal, indirect sex discrimination and harassment related to sex at a preliminary hearing.
For unfair dismissal, the tribunal applied the reasonably practicable test. It accepted that there may have been exceptional circumstances relating to the claimant's lack of knowledge of employment rights, but found that after being told by her union on 20 March 2020 that her claim was out of time, she did not act within a reasonable period. The tribunal did not accept that Covid restrictions explained the subsequent delay before early conciliation was started.
For the discrimination claims, the tribunal considered whether it would be just and equitable to extend time. It noted the delay after the claimant was told her claims were out of time and considered the prospects of the claims. It found the indirect discrimination claim had at best little reasonable prospect of success because establishing the pleaded PCP would be difficult and the respondent's legitimate aim defence was plausible. It also found difficulties with the harassment claim, including whether the alleged incidents were a continuing act and whether the second alleged act was related to sex. The tribunal therefore struck out all claims as out of time.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim was struck out because it was presented out of time and the tribunal found no reason to extend time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The indirect sex discrimination claim was struck out because it was presented out of time and the tribunal found it would not be just and equitable to extend time. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The harassment related to sex claim was struck out because it was presented out of time and the tribunal found it would not be just and equitable to extend time. | Struck out | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.111(2)(a) and (b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable
- s33 Limitation Act 1980
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.