Mr D Sually, Brother For v Respondent — 2020

At a preliminary hearing on 17 January 2020, Employment Judge Balogun dealt with strike-out, deposit and limitation issues arising from the claimant's claims of constructive dismissal, direct sex and disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, harassment and victimisation. The constructive dismissal claim was noted as in time and outside the application. The tribunal treated acts before 18 October 2017 as out of time on the face of it, but left the question whether earlier allegations formed part of a continuing series to the final hearing because it was fact-sensitive and evidence-dependent.

On the reasonable-adjustments head, the tribunal held the alleged failures between April 2016 and 5-6 October 2017 were prima facie out of time. It accepted that the claimant was dyslexic and had been signed off work, and although no medical evidence was produced, it found those circumstances and the short 12-day delay justified extending time for allegation 7x. The tribunal also rejected the argument that allegation 7v was a continuing omission, reading it as a positive one-off act rather than a continuing failure.

The tribunal struck out the victimisation claim because the further and better particulars did not identify any protected acts. It struck out the allegations at 1oo, pp and qq and the harassment allegations at 8uu, vv and ww for no reasonable prospect of success, finding no explanation why those matters were because of or related to sex or disability, although it noted section 108 Equality Act 2010 could permit post-employment claims closely connected to employment. Allegations 1nn and 8tt were not struck out but were made subject to a deposit order because the tribunal considered them weak, while still leaving open the possibility of an inference of discrimination.