Ms C Punshon v STEM Learning Limited — 2025

At the preliminary hearing on 13 December 2024, Employment Judge Miller dismissed Ms C Punshon's claims against STEM Learning Limited. The tribunal found the complaint was presented out of time: the alleged acts were said to have occurred on 18 January 2024, early conciliation ended on 14 May 2024, the primary limitation period expired on 14 June 2024, and the claim was properly presented only on 21 June 2024 after an unsuccessful attempt to send a blank form on 14 June. Applying British Coal Corpn v Keeble and s.123 Equality Act 2010, the judge held it was not just and equitable to extend time because the claimant had not given evidence of a good reason for the delay and had left matters until the last possible moment.

On the merits, the tribunal held that the race and sex discrimination claims had no reasonable prospects of success. The claimant did not identify any factual basis connecting the alleged detriments to race or sex beyond saying she was treated less favourably than a white man, and the judge referred to Madarassy v Nomura International plc in concluding that difference in treatment and difference in protected characteristic were not enough. The respondent's emails showed that the claimant had used the STEM forum for matters unconnected with the PDL process, including representations about other tribunal proceedings, and the tribunal considered it likely that the respondent acted because it believed she was not using the forum in accordance with its terms.

The tribunal also held that the proposed victimisation claim had no reasonable prospects because the October 2022 conversation with Mandy Honeyman about the Wolfram alpha course did not amount to a protected act under s.27(2) Equality Act 2010. The judge said the claimant's concerns were about the quality of the course rather than making a complaint under the Act. On jurisdiction, the tribunal said the claimant had no reasonable prospect of showing she was a worker, although it noted there was a possibility that the respondent was an employment service provider under ss.55 and 56 Equality Act 2010. The claimant's failure to comply with directions requiring a witness statement and documents on limitation also meant she could not give evidence in support of extending time, and the claims were dismissed.