In person For the v Respondent — 2021

At this preliminary hearing the tribunal considered strike-out, deposit order and jurisdiction issues. The direct sex discrimination allegations concerned conduct said to have occurred between 13 July and 23 October 2018, and the section 15 Equality Act 2010 disability discrimination claim concerned an incident on 13 July 2018. ACAS early conciliation began on 18 March 2019 and ended on 2 April 2019, and the original claim form was submitted on 26 June 2019. The tribunal found that these claims were out of time, that there was no continuing state of affairs extending time, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time because no compelling reason backed by evidence had been provided. Those claims were struck out.

The tribunal also struck out one section 27 Equality Act 2010 victimisation allegation. The protected act relied on was the claimant's grievance of 10 January 2019 alleging sex discrimination, but the pleaded detriment that disciplinary proceedings were escalated to include a threat of dismissal occurred on 9 January 2019. Because that detriment predated the protected act relied on in the pleaded case, the tribunal found that allegation had no reasonable prospect of success.

The respondent's application concerning the first alleged protected disclosure was refused. The claimant relied on her 10 January 2019 grievance alleging sex discrimination and what was said at the grievance hearing. Although the respondent relied on minutes recording the claimant as saying that she was not really alleging she was taken to a disciplinary because she was a woman, the claimant disputed the minutes and they had not been agreed. The tribunal held that live evidence was needed and declined to strike out that part of the whistleblowing claim or make a deposit order.

For the second alleged protected disclosure, concerning an alleged breach by the claimant's colleague JT of contractual duties to a previous employer, the tribunal did not strike out the claim but found that the claimant had little reasonable prospect of establishing that it was a protected disclosure. Taking account of the claimant's means, including her income of approximately £6,000 per calendar month and debts, the tribunal made a £50 deposit order. The tribunal deferred any decision on the wages claim, which concerned company sick pay, and made case management orders for further evidence about emails and when they were read.