In person For the v Respondent — 2022

Ms Harding was employed by China Construction Bank Corporation London Branch as Property Services Manager from November 2014. She went off sick in January 2019 and returned to work in January 2020. Her case advanced race discrimination allegations about treatment before January 2019 and disability discrimination allegations about treatment during her sickness absence and on return. The tribunal also recorded that she later grieved about bullying, victimisation, harassment and deductions, and that after her dismissal on 12 November 2020 she sought to amend the claim to add unfair dismissal and direct disability discrimination.

On disability, the tribunal accepted that the claimant reported low mood, anxiety and depression symptoms, and that between February and August 2019 she had difficulty with some day-to-day activities. Applying section 6 Equality Act 2010, however, it found that no mental impairment was established on the evidence before it. The judge considered the symptoms to be more consistent with a reaction to adverse circumstances than a clinically established impairment, and noted the absence of expert medical evidence. The tribunal also held that any substantial effect was not shown to be long term, because the evidence indicated improvement by August 2019, the development of coping strategies, and a return to work in January 2020.

The race discrimination claims were held to be out of time under section 123(1) Equality Act 2010. Applying Robertson v Bexley Community Centre, British Coal Corporation v Keeble and related authorities, the tribunal refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis. It found that the claimant knew or suspected the relevant facts well before she presented her claim, had been able to correspond with the respondent, its insurer, Unite, ACAS and a solicitor, and had not acted promptly. The tribunal also found that the delay would prejudice the respondent because relevant witnesses had left and the passage of time would reduce the cogency of the evidence.

The application to amend the claim to add unfair dismissal and direct disability discrimination was refused. The tribunal held that the proposed unfair dismissal claim was a new cause of action, that it was out of time, and that it had not been shown to be not reasonably practicable to present it in time. It reached the same practical conclusion on the proposed direct disability discrimination claim arising from the dismissal. No monetary remedy was awarded because all claims failed.