Case 1805352/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Pryor v Cambian Childcare Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1805352/2019
- Decision date
- 2 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Pryor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Pryor brought a sole Equality Act complaint of disability-related harassment arising from an alleged exchange with a colleague, CH, in July or August 2018. She said CH had referred to colleagues as dyslexic and then dismissed her when she disclosed that she also had dyslexia. The tribunal noted that the complaint had first been raised in a grievance in November 2018 and later in an appeal in February 2019.
The hearing was limited to time limit issue. The tribunal accepted that the alleged interchange could potentially cross the harassment threshold under the Equality Act, but held that the complaint had been presented outside the three-month limit. In deciding whether it was just and equitable to extend time, the tribunal took into account the delay, the fact that the claimant had union advice and representation, the need for certainty in time limits, and the claimant's ability to have known that she could bring the complaint earlier. It considered those factors outweighed the reasons advanced by the claimant.
The tribunal therefore dismissed the harassment complaint as out of time. The judgment records the alleged comments as background to the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint, but no remedy was awarded in this judgment because the Equality Act claim did not proceed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Sole Equality Act complaint of alleged disability-related harassment. The tribunal dismissed it because it was presented outside the three-month time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable
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.