Miss R Rokitowska v Kneip Communication SA — 2022

This was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Nicklin sitting alone on the respondent's application to strike out the claimant's sex discrimination claim and, alternatively, to seek a deposit order. The claimant had been employed as a Pre-Sales Specialist from 11 July 2019 until redundancy on 30 October 2020, with notice expiring on 30 November 2020. At the hearing she was permitted to amend her sex discrimination case to add two further allegations and to add a race discrimination claim based on the same facts. The tribunal did not determine the merits of the discrimination claims at this stage.

The claimant's case was that she, a Polish woman, was treated less favourably than two male English or British comparators who were made redundant in summer 2020. She alleged differences in the amount of advance notice, the existence of consultation, the information given about the redundancy process, the basis on which termination was said to be justified, the absence of redundancy pay or compensation despite the comparators also having under two years' service, and the way the respondent responded when she tried to resolve matters. The respondent said the claimant's redundancy was in autumn 2020, after a change in leadership and a separate restructuring programme, and that the summer 2020 UK redundancies were tied to a Luxembourg Social Plan and were not materially comparable. It also relied on other British male autumn 2020 comparators who did not receive redundancy payments.

Applying Rule 37 and Rule 39, and the authorities cited on strike out and deposit orders, the tribunal held that both claims had a reasonable prospect of success. It said the claimant's case, taken at its highest, disclosed an arguable case that she had been treated less favourably than the two identified comparators in relation to process and outcome, including the absence of a redundancy payment and differences in consultation and notification. The tribunal considered that the disputes about the two redundancy rounds, the comparators' treatment, and whether any difference in treatment was because of sex or race could only properly be resolved at a final hearing on oral evidence. The respondent's application for strike out and/or a deposit order was therefore dismissed, and no financial order was made at this stage.