Case 1804423/2019 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Respondent — 2020

Case reference: 1804423/2019
Decision date: 28 January 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Davies Appearances
Venue: Leeds

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At the start of the preliminary hearing, Mr McGlinchey confirmed that he did not want to pursue his direct discrimination complaint based on sexual orientation. The tribunal therefore dismissed that complaint on withdrawal. The same hearing also addressed the timeliness of his disability reasonable-adjustment complaints and a separate deposit-order issue, but the written reasons supplied here resolve only the withdrawal and time-limit questions.

The disability allegations were three complaints that Mr Hines should have engaged with the claimant through Remploy in 2016, should have given him a female line manager in July 2018, and should have moved him to a less pressured job in October 2018. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had emotionally unstable personality disorder and that the respondent accepted he was disabled at all material times. For the purpose of the preliminary hearing it assumed, at the claimant’s highest, that those failures could be established and also assumed that the dismissal could amount to unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability. Even on that basis, it found that the reasonable-adjustment complaints were separate and distinct from the later disciplinary dismissal and were not part of an ongoing course of conduct.

Applying s 123 Equality Act 2010, the tribunal held that the latest possible date for the reasonable-adjustment complaints was 4 December 2018, when the claimant was suspended, and that time would in any event have started to run by then. The claim was not presented until 16 August 2019, and ACAS was not contacted until June 2019, so the complaints were outside the three-month limit even allowing for early conciliation. The tribunal refused to extend time on the just and equitable basis, noting the claimant’s mental ill-health, his union and DAWN support, his active participation in the disciplinary process, the absence of any grievance, the lack of a clear explanation for the delay, and the prejudice to the respondent from having to meet stale claims.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Sexual orientation discrimination	At the start of the hearing the claimant confirmed he did not wish to pursue this complaint, and the tribunal dismissed it on withdrawal. The reasons also note that a separate deposit order was made, but no deposit amount is recorded in this judgment.	Withdrawn	Sexual orientation	—
Disability discrimination	The tribunal held that the three reasonable-adjustment complaints were out of time under s 123 Equality Act 2010 and refused to extend time on the just and equitable basis, so it had no jurisdiction to determine them.	Dismissed	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

6 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.