Case 2201769/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 2201769/2020
- Decision date
- 12 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Glennie Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Diomidous brought complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments and unfair constructive dismissal. The tribunal identified the reasonable adjustments allegations as events in September and October 2018, including rota issues and being required to work at Bush Hill Park, and the constructive dismissal complaint as also relying on later matters including irregular contact during sickness absence and not being told about a restructure.
On limitation, the tribunal held that the reasonable adjustments complaint was presented well outside the primary three-month period, by about 14 months. It accepted that Ms Diomidous had been significantly unwell with stress and depression, but found that this did not justify allowing the claim to proceed. The tribunal applied the section 123(1) Equality Act 2010 just and equitable test, took account of the length of delay, the effect on witness recollection, and the fact that the relevant managers had left, and concluded that the claim should be struck out.
On constructive dismissal, the tribunal treated the issue as whether there was any reasonable prospect of success under Rule 37. It found no reasonable prospect that the alleged failure to inform Ms Diomidous about a restructure was a breach of contract, because the restructure did not affect the shop where she worked. It also found a clear prospect that a tribunal would conclude that the reason for resignation was the respondent's refusal to make her redundant, noting the grievance documents and later messages in which she said she would resign if not made redundant.
The tribunal further held that, even if the earlier alleged breaches could have been made out, there was no reasonable prospect of a tribunal finding that Ms Diomidous had not affirmed the contract. In particular, it said the September and October 2018 matters had been affirmed by the passage of time, and the grievance process and subsequent resignation affirmed the contract in relation to the third alleged breach. The unfair constructive dismissal complaint was therefore struck out in full.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments was presented out of time, by about 14 months. The tribunal found it would not be just and equitable to allow it to proceed. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Complaint of unfair constructive dismissal was struck out because the tribunal found it had no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal found no reasonable prospect that the alleged failure to inform the claimant about a restructure was a breach, and concluded that the claim was also undermined by affirmation and the evidence that the resignation was linked to a wish to be made redundant. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.123(1) Equality Act 2010 just and equitable test
- Rule 37 no reasonable prospect of success
- implied term of trust and confidence
- affirmation of contract
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.