Ms L Hatch, of Counsel For the v Respondent — 2020

This was an open preliminary hearing on whether the Tribunal had territorial jurisdiction and whether deposit orders should be made. The Claimant had brought claims including direct race, sex and perceived disability discrimination, harassment, victimisation, automatic unfair dismissal, ordinary unfair dismissal and protected disclosure detriment, but this judgment did not decide their merits.

The Tribunal held that it did have jurisdiction. Applying the Lawson v Serco and Ravat approach, it found that the Claimant's connection with Great Britain was sufficiently strong because from 4 March 2017 she lived and worked exclusively in London, worked almost entirely on UK matters, was not peripatetic, and was dismissed while working in London on 31 August 2018. The Tribunal accepted that she remained an employee of PG USA, but found that the contractual label was not decisive and that the reality of how the employment was operated placed her within UK statutory employment protection.

In reaching that conclusion the Tribunal found that the Fairfax, Virginia address was her parents' home rather than her own home, and that her home during the London period was rented accommodation in London. It also treated the earlier part of the employment, before 4 March 2017, as potentially relevant background only and not as a separate basis for UK claims. The Tribunal said the employment in London was not a casual short-term secondment and that the longer period in London, together with the Claimant's immigration position and the terms on which she actually worked, supported jurisdiction.