Case 1805728/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v B and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 1805728/2021
- Decision date
- 16 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge EP Morgan
Parties
3 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the matter by CVP on 20 January 2022 before Employment Judge EP Morgan QC. The claimant, who had worked for the first respondent from 7 August 2019 to 26 October 2021 as a customer sales assistant, clarified claims of disability discrimination, race discrimination, sex harassment, victimisation and constructive dismissal. The hearing was concerned with time limits, jurisdiction, and whether any allegations should be struck out or proceed to a deposit stage, and the tribunal applied the three-month time limit in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal concluded that several allegations were out of time and were not continuing acts or part of a series of conduct for which time should be extended on a just and equitable basis. It struck out the disability allegation about being denied an emergency toilet break on 3 January 2021, the sex harassment allegation said to have occurred in January 2021, the race discrimination allegations from November and December 2019, October 2020 and paragraph 19(i), and the race harassment allegations in paragraph 20(a) and (b). The tribunal noted that the claimant had pointed to a negative workplace attitude and a period of sickness absence, but it did not find a sufficient basis to treat the out-of-time matters as a continuing course of conduct.
The tribunal did not finally dispose of all pleaded matters at this hearing. It recorded that the remaining sex harassment allegations in paragraphs 18(a), (b) and (d) were not shown to have no reasonable prospect of being treated as part of a series or of receiving an extension of time, and that the remaining race discrimination allegations at paragraphs 19(d)-(h) were likewise not finally determined. It also recorded that no time issue arose in relation to the victimisation and constructive dismissal claims, which were left for later determination on the merits.
Claims and outcomes
6 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Single allegation that an emergency toilet break was refused on 3 January 2021. The tribunal struck it out as out of time; paragraph 36 also refers to it as a section 15 claim. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The January 2021 allegation at paragraph 18(c) was struck out as out of time. The remaining sex harassment allegations at paragraphs 18(a), (b) and (d) were not finally determined at this hearing. | Other | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | Allegations at paragraphs 19(a)-(c) and 19(i) were struck out as out of time. The allegations at paragraphs 19(d)-(h) were not finally determined at this hearing. | Other | Race | — |
| Harassment | The allegations at paragraphs 20(a) and (b) were struck out as out of time. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal recorded that no time issue arose, but it made no merits determination at this hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal recorded that no time issue arose, but it made no merits determination at this hearing. |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- section 123(3) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension
- continuing act / series of conduct
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.