Case 2207985/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 2207985/2023
- Decision date
- 17 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Representation For
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a Senior Social Media Specialist from 1 August 2022 to 6 January 2023. She alleged race, sex and disability discrimination arising from comments and feedback in September, October and November 2022, together with the termination of employment on 6 January 2023. The tribunal held that the complaints relating to acts before 21 December 2022 were out of time. It found no reasonable prospect of establishing that those incidents formed part of a course of conduct extending over time, and it refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis.
In reaching that conclusion, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had resigned on 30 November 2022 because of the alleged discrimination, had contacted ACAS on 20 March 2023, and had provided only scant and unclear evidence about why the claim was not presented within the primary time limit. It accepted that she had some health and personal circumstances, but found no cogent evidence that those matters prevented her from bringing a timely claim. The discrimination complaints based on the earlier acts were therefore struck out under Rule 37(1)(a).
On disability, the tribunal did not accept that the claimant was disabled at the relevant time by reason of anxiety/panic disorder, ADHD, dyslexia or clinical depression. It gave limited weight to the therapist evidence, and considered the medical evidence insufficient to show a long-term impairment in those respects. However, it accepted the Halycon assessment as supporting weaknesses in working memory, processing of phonological information and reading comprehension, and found that those weaknesses had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. The claimant was therefore found to be disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010 on that basis.
The tribunal noted that the respondent accepted that the claimant's mother was a disabled person, so issue (4) did not require determination. The decision did not finally determine the merits of the remaining disability complaint concerning the 6 January 2023 termination or the breach of contract claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The alleged race incidents before 21 December 2022, including the comment about the Queen on 9 September 2022 and the hair comment in October 2022, were held to be out of time. The tribunal found no reasonable prospect of showing a continuing act and refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The alleged sex discrimination incidents before 21 December 2022, including the 'single mother' and 'people-pleasing' comment and the sex element of the 25 November 2022 feedback, were held to be out of time. The tribunal found no reasonable prospect of a continuing act and refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal struck out the disability complaints relating to acts before 21 December 2022 as out of time, but separately found that the claimant was disabled under section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of weakness in working memory, processing of phonological information and reading comprehension. It did not finally determine the merits of the remaining 6 January 2023 termination complaint in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- Lyfar v Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals Trust
- Aziz v FDA
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Miller v Ministry of Justice
- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Goodwin v Patent Office
- J v DLA Piper UK LLP
- Boyle v SCA Packaging Ltd
- Cruickshank v VAW Motorcast Ltd
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.