In person For the v Respondent — 2019

The claimant presented ET1 proceedings on 7 November 2018 seeking unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, pregnancy discrimination and holiday pay. At the preliminary hearing on 1 November 2019, EJ Webster held that the unfair dismissal claim was premature because it had been issued before notice of dismissal was given; notice was given around 17 December 2018 with an effective date of termination of 12 February 2019, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction and struck the claim out under s.94 and s.111(3) ERA 1996, applying Throsby v Imperial College of Science and Technology.

On disability, the tribunal held that the claimant was disabled within the Equality Act 2010 by reason of post-natal depression, hemiplegic migraines and IBS. It accepted the claimant's evidence and relied on contemporaneous medical material, including the GP letter of 28 June 2018 and the occupational health report of 2 July 2018, in finding that the impairments were long-term and had a substantial adverse effect on day to day activities.

On limitation, the tribunal held that the alleged operation of the sickness guidance process before 9 January 2015 was out of time because there was a significant gap in monitoring between 28 October 2013 and 9 January 2015 and no basis to extend time just and equitably. It allowed the disability discrimination allegations based on the sickness guidance process from 7 January 2015 onwards to continue, finding that time should be extended for that later period because the claimant had been unwell, had raised concerns with her employer, the delay was not excessive, and the respondent would not suffer significant prejudice. The separate sex discrimination claim based on a 2016 miscarriage-related incident was struck out as out of time and the tribunal declined to extend time.

The respondent's applications to strike out or obtain a deposit order were refused in relation to the remaining direct disability discrimination and reasonable-adjustment allegations, including complaints about work from home during IBS flare-ups, use of annual leave to care for her daughter, and working from Curlew House, because the central facts were disputed and the tribunal could not fairly conduct a mini-trial. The ET1 also referred to pregnancy discrimination and holiday pay, but this reserved judgment does not record a separate ruling on those heads.