In person For the v Respondent — 2023

The claimant presented her claim form on 25 November 2022 alleging harassment related to sex, sexual harassment, notice pay and holiday pay arising from her employment with the respondent from 9 November 2020 to 19 July 2022 as a National Account Manager. For limitation purposes, the tribunal found that the primary time limit expired on 18 October 2022 and that early conciliation ran from 15 November 2022 to 22 November 2022, after that expiry date.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that the respondent delayed matters in order to prevent her from bringing her claims in time. It found that the respondent responded promptly to the claimant's email complaint of 20 July 2022, appointed an investigator, arranged interviews and provided updates within a reasonable period. The tribunal also found that the claimant first learned of the time limit from ACAS on 31 October 2022, by which time she was already out of time, and that she did not have a good reason for waiting until 15 November 2022 to begin early conciliation.

Applying section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 and the authorities it cited, including Bexley Community Centre v Robertson, Apelogun-Gabriels, Hendricks, Adedeji and Miller, the tribunal held that it was just and equitable to extend time for the harassment claims. It accepted that the allegations were sensitive and that delay caused some prejudice, but found the respondent remained in contact with the alleged perpetrator G and had internal investigation material that would assist with recollection, so the prejudice was not enough to refuse an extension. For notice pay and holiday pay, applying the reasonably practicable test under section 23 ERA 1996 and the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994, the tribunal found that the claimant had not shown it was not reasonably practicable to present those claims in time, so those claims were out of time and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear them.