Case 2203793/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Rajput v Commerzbank AG and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 2203793/2020
- Decision date
- 12 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hodgson Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms J Rajput
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs J Rajput brought this 2020 claim after her dismissal on 30 March 2020 against Commerzbank AG and Société Générale. The tribunal recorded that her earlier 2017 proceedings had partly succeeded, including maternity discrimination and harassment findings, and that sex discrimination and harassment issues from that case had been remitted on appeal. In this case she pleaded victimisation, harassment, sex and maternity discrimination, unfair dismissal and TUPE issues; the disability discrimination section was withdrawn. The tribunal also noted that many of the pleaded allegations were hard to identify from the particulars of claim and had been characterised during case management as unclear or bare allegations.
The respondents argued that most of the equality complaints before 29 January 2020 were out of time and could not be linked to the dismissal as a continuing act. Applying s.123 Equality Act 2010 and the authorities it cited, including Hendricks, Aziz, Lyfar, Robinson and E v X, L and Z, the tribunal held that the claimant had established a prima facie case that the alleged treatment from her return to work could amount to conduct extending over a period ending with dismissal. It accepted that the respondents' own pleaded cases referred to continuing difficulties and a breakdown in working relationships, and it found there was at least an arguable basis for saying the dismissal formed the end point of that course of conduct.
The tribunal therefore refused to dismiss any of the equality claims as out of time and left any final limitation question, including any just and equitable extension, to the tribunal hearing the merits. It separately dealt with the TUPE reg. 15 consultation allegation and held that the time point for that claim should not be decided as a preliminary issue because whether earlier presentation was reasonably practicable would require evidence, particularly as the respondents had only later admitted the transfer. The transfer date had been determined separately as 1 October 2019. No remedy was awarded in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The disability discrimination section was withdrawn and was not considered further. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal refused to dismiss the victimisation allegations as out of time and left any final limitation issue to the merits tribunal. | Other | — | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal refused to dismiss the harassment allegations as out of time and left any final limitation issue to the merits tribunal. | Other | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal refused to dismiss the sex discrimination allegations as out of time and left any final limitation issue to the merits tribunal. | Other | Sex | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal refused to dismiss the maternity discrimination allegations as out of time and left any final limitation issue to the merits tribunal. | Other | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The dismissal was accepted as in time; no merits finding was made in this preliminary decision. | Other | — | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The reg. 15 TUPE consultation time issue was not determined as a preliminary issue because whether earlier presentation was reasonably practicable would require evidence; the transfer date had been separately found to be 1 October 2019. |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- conduct extending over a period
- prima facie case
- just and equitable extension
- rule 29 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 54 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
- Aziz v FDA
- Lyfar v Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust
- Robinson v Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
- E v X, L and Z UKEAT/0079/20
- Caterham Ltd v Rose
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.