Ms J Schemane v Mace Limited — 2018

At the remote public preliminary hearing on 29 November and 2 December 2022 before Employment Judge Khan sitting alone, the tribunal considered whether the claimant's Equality Act complaints were in time and whether there was conduct extending over a period. The claimant had brought claims for race, disability and sex discrimination, harassment and victimisation. The tribunal held there was a prima facie case that allegations (a) to (vv) were capable of forming part of conduct extending over a period, but it did not find it reasonably arguable that allegations (a) to (vv) were part of the same conduct as allegations (ww), (xx), (yy) or (zz) because they did not have common alleged discriminators, were not of the same type of conduct and were not proximate in time.

On the just and equitable question under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence about significant and ongoing poor mental and physical health since October 2017, including anxiety, panic attacks, insomnia, night terrors, nausea, foggy-mindedness, alopecia, adrenal fatigue, choking, long-Covid and agoraphobia, and found that this affected her cognitive processing, reading, writing, concentration, focus and decision-making. It also accepted the impact of financial stress, the grievance process begun in March 2018, advice from her union that she should exhaust that process, her attempts to obtain legal support, and her late understanding that her claims were out of time. The tribunal noted that her disability impact statement was not challenged by the respondent and that it did not find her union representative to have acted as a skilled advisor in employment law or tribunal procedure.

Balancing the length of the delay against prejudice, the tribunal found it just and equitable to extend time to 4 April 2018 so that allegations (vv), (ww) and (xx) were deemed in time. It refused to extend time for allegations (a) to (n), (p) to (u), (x), (bb) and (dd) if they were otherwise out of time, taking account of the likely unavailability of Mr Pettit to give oral evidence from Germany and the fact that many allegations against him were based on conduct for which documentary evidence was unlikely. The tribunal also considered the respondent's prejudice case, but found Mr Goodwyn's statement lacked particularity and substance.