Case 2206175/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 2206175/2022
- Decision date
- 8 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Glennie Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard a preliminary-hearing application across three linked claims and applied the strike-out and deposit-order rules, the Equality Act burden-of-proof provisions in section 136, the cases of Efobi and Madarassy, and the amendment test in Chaudhry and Selkent. It also considered section 120(3) Equality Act 2010 on conduct extending over a period and section 108(1) ERA 1996 on qualifying service for unfair dismissal.
Complaints 1 and 2 concerned alleged refusals by Mr Daley in October 2021 and on 5 May 2022 to allow the claimant to use a printer. The tribunal did not strike those complaints out and did not make deposit orders against them. It held that complaint 1 could potentially be treated as conduct extending over a period under section 120(3), and it allowed amendments so that religion or belief could be relied on in addition to race and sex.
Complaint 3 concerned the grievance and appeal about those incidents. The tribunal found those allegations had little reasonable prospect of success and ordered deposits of £100 for each of the grievance and appeal allegations. Complaint 4 concerned the dismissal. The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out because the claimant did not have two years' continuous service. The dismissal victimisation allegation, and the amended direct discrimination allegation based on race, sex and religion or belief, were allowed to proceed only subject to £100 deposit orders each because the tribunal considered them to have little reasonable prospect of success.
Complaints 5 to 8, covering delay to the probation review, non-promotion, 'gaslighting', and micro-aggressions by other staff, were not part of the original claim forms and required amendment. The tribunal refused those amendments, finding that the hardship to the respondent would outweigh the hardship to the claimant and that the proposed allegations also appeared to have little reasonable prospect of success. It accepted the claimant's evidence about her means, including Universal Credit, about £1,500 savings, no dependants and rent arrears, and fixed the total deposits at £400, made up of four £100 deposits.
Claims and outcomes
13 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Complaint 1; October 2021 printer refusal. Strike-out and deposit order were refused, and the tribunal allowed amendment to add religion or belief. Section 120(3) conduct-extending-over-a-period point was noted. | Other | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Complaint 1; October 2021 printer refusal. Strike-out and deposit order were refused, and the tribunal allowed amendment to add religion or belief. Section 120(3) conduct-extending-over-a-period point was noted. | Other | Sex | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Complaint 1; October 2021 printer refusal. Strike-out and deposit order were refused, and the tribunal allowed amendment to add religion or belief. Section 120(3) conduct-extending-over-a-period point was noted. | Other | Religion or belief | — |
| Race discrimination | Complaint 2; 5 May 2022 printer refusal. Strike-out and deposit order were refused, and the tribunal allowed amendment to add religion or belief. | Other | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Complaint 2; 5 May 2022 printer refusal. Strike-out and deposit order were refused, and the tribunal allowed amendment to add religion or belief. | Other | Sex | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Complaint 2; 5 May 2022 printer refusal. Strike-out and deposit order were refused, and the tribunal allowed amendment to add religion or belief. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £400
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
9 references- Rule 37 no reasonable prospect
- Rule 39 little reasonable prospect
- s.136 Equality Act 2010 burden of proof
- Efobi v Royal Mail Group
- Madarassy v Nomura International PLC
- Chaudhry v Cerberus Security
- Selkent v Moore
- s.120(3) Equality Act 2010 conduct extending over a period
- s.108(1) ERA 1996 two-year service
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.