Case 2302593/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Jabeen Haque v Mitie Care and Custody Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2302593/2020
- Decision date
- 9 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Abbott Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Jabeen Haque
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt an open preliminary hearing, the Tribunal considered disability status, limitation issues for Equality Act claims, and an application to amend. It found that the Claimant had anxiety and depression amounting to a mental impairment and that, from June 2019 to April 2020, the impairment had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities, applying the statutory provisions on treatment measures and recurrence.
The Tribunal held that it was just and equitable to extend time for the disability discrimination complaints. It accepted that the Claimant's ill health substantially affected her ability to raise those complaints until 25 November 2019, and that the disciplinary process after her return to work explained further delay. The disability complaints, including discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments, were therefore permitted to proceed.
The complaints of race, religion and sex discrimination, pleaded as direct discrimination or harassment, were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The alleged acts were found to have occurred substantially outside the primary limitation period, the Tribunal did not accept that the delay was caused by duress, and it considered that the Respondent would be significantly prejudiced by having to deal with those historic complaints. The application to amend the claim to rely on dismissal as an act of race, religion and sex discrimination was refused as a substantial, out-of-time alteration for which no credible explanation for the delay had been given.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The Tribunal decided that the Claimant was disabled throughout June 2019 to April 2020 and that it had jurisdiction to hear the pleaded disability complaints, including discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The merits were not determined at this preliminary hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The complaint of discrimination and/or harassment on grounds of religion was dismissed because the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Race discrimination | The complaint of discrimination and/or harassment on grounds of race was dismissed because the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The complaint of discrimination and/or harassment on grounds of sex was dismissed because the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- Goodwin v Patent Office
- Cruickshank v Vaw Motorcast Ltd
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- Secretary of State for Justice v Johnson
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership
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.