Miss Rehana Younus v Hounslow and Richmond Community Healthcare NHS Trust — 2023

This was a preliminary hearing on limitation and amendment issues, not a merits hearing. The claimant’s ET1 was lodged on 22 January 2021 after ACAS early conciliation from 10 November 2020 to 10 December 2020. The tribunal considered race discrimination, two religion or belief discrimination complaints, a disability reasonable adjustments complaint, and an application to add whistleblowing detriment claims. The unfair dismissal claim was said to be unaffected and to remain for a final hearing.

The race discrimination complaint and both religion or belief complaints were found to be out of time. The race complaint concerned an alleged exclusion from a July 2018 leaving party for Stephanie Holley; the tribunal held there was nothing before it from which the claimant could establish that the reason for the alleged treatment was race. One religion or belief complaint concerned the alleged removal of an allocated prayer room arrangement in 2018, and the other concerned an August 2018 WhatsApp message about a 'sausage surprise'. For the prayer room complaint, the tribunal found there was no continuing act past 2018 and no reason to extend time. For the WhatsApp complaint, the tribunal held that, even taking the claimant’s case at its highest, the message was not shown to be religiously motivated or directed at the claimant.

The disability discrimination complaint was different. It concerned a request for a bicycle or electric scooter as a reasonable adjustment in light of foot pain, plantar fasciitis and sciatica, following occupational health advice that walking made the pain worse. Although the complaint was also out of time, the tribunal extended time on a just and equitable basis, relying in part on the contemporaneous occupational health material and the fact that the issue overlapped with the claimant’s constructive unfair dismissal case.

The application to add whistleblowing complaints was refused. The claimant said she had made disclosures to several individuals about concerns for public safety and health and safety, including concerns arising from SNT WhatsApp messages, but the tribunal found there was little evidence that she had actually conveyed information amounting to protected disclosures. It also held that the proposed amendment was a substantive new cause of action, was substantially out of time, and would prejudice the respondent, especially because the alleged disclosures were said to include oral conversations and did not form part of the original ET1 narrative.