Claimant v Consero London L2302142/2018 — 2019

Q brought unfair dismissal, direct sex discrimination, sexual harassment and victimisation. At the preliminary hearing the tribunal applied Selkent principles to amendments, including requests to add automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA, detriment under s.47B ERA, post-employment victimisation, and dismissal-based discrimination and harassment, and it also considered a request to add Robert Osborne as a respondent.

The sexual harassment claim was struck out because the complained-of conduct on 11 April 2017 and 23 December 2017 was out of time for a claim presented on 7 June 2018, and there were no just and equitable reasons to extend time. The claim that female employees had to be accompanied by a male when visiting client properties was not struck out or the subject of a deposit order because the tribunal could not resolve on a preliminary basis whether the policy had been implemented or whether the dismissal formed part of a continuing act; the amendment to plead dismissal as direct discrimination was allowed.

On victimisation, the judge held that objecting to the accompaniment policy was at least arguable as a protected act, and that complaints about the third-party harassment were also arguable because the meaning of rejection under s.26(3)(c) EqA required a full hearing. The allegation that the claimant gave police information about JC's assault was struck out because it could not amount to a protected act. The amendments to add automatic unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriment and post-employment victimisation were allowed, while the proposed harassment-based dismissal amendment and the application to add Robert Osborne as a respondent were refused.