Case 2303246/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Marrett v Barclays Bank UK plc HELD AT: London South (hybrid hearing) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2303246/2022
- Decision date
- 9 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hart
- Panel members
- Mr Mardner, Mr Dixon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Marrett
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a liability-only judgment in a disability discrimination and holiday pay claim brought by Ms Marrett, a Community Banker, against Barclays Bank UK Plc. Disability was not disputed. The complaints spanned events from 2017 to 2023 and were heard over several days in April, May, June and September 2024 before Employment Judge Hart sitting with Mr Mardner and Mr Dixon. The claimant did not produce a witness statement; the tribunal permitted her claim form and chronology to stand as her evidence in chief.
The tribunal unanimously upheld two complaints of harassment related to disability arising from comments made to the claimant by her line manager Mr Samad in 2022: that she would no longer be working on the till due to her disability and that she should not handle an item in the machine area because of her health (issues 6.2.16 and 6.2.20). All other complaints, including the remaining disability discrimination, reasonable adjustments, victimisation and holiday pay claims, were not well founded and were dismissed.
On time limits, the tribunal accepted that the two successful complaints were in time once the ACAS early conciliation extension under s.140B EA 2010 was applied, and in the alternative exercised its just and equitable discretion to extend time, noting the short delay and the absence of particular prejudice to the respondent. Remedy in respect of the two upheld harassment complaints was listed for a separate two-hour hearing, with the parties encouraged to seek private agreement in the interim.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Two acts of harassment related to disability by Mr Samad in 2022 (issues 6.2.16 and 6.2.20) found well founded. Remedy listed for separate hearing. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination complaints not upheld. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments complaints not upheld. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation complaints not upheld. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay claim formed part of the proceedings; falls within 'all other claims are not well founded and are dismissed' at paragraph 2 of the judgment. PDF text supplied was truncated so finer detail on this claim was not visible. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.140B Equality Act 2010
- Romero v Nottingham City Council (EAT 0303/17)
- Abertawe v Morgan [2018] ICR 1194 (CA)
- Rule 62(3) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 6(c) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
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.