Case 2304135/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Leigh v Whitbread Group plc — 2021
- Case reference
- 2304135/2019
- Decision date
- 21 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Richardson Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Leigh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant had worked as a night receptionist and went off sick in January 2019 before resigning with effect from 1 September 2019. The Tribunal identified proposed sex discrimination and harassment allegations, disability-related harassment allegations, and a proposed reasonable adjustments claim, most of which concerned events between late 2018 and January 2019.
The Tribunal found that, apart from the June 2019 welfare-call allegation, the discrimination claims were out of time. It considered the claimant's explanation for delay, including the internal grievance process and attempts to obtain advice, but found it was not just and equitable to extend time. It also refused the amendment application, finding that the proposed amendments were significantly late, could have been included earlier, and had little merit.
The June 2019 disability-related harassment allegation was in time, but the Tribunal found it had no reasonable prospect of success. It held that it was normal for the respondent to seek medical assessment after a prolonged absence and not unreasonable to raise social media posts that appeared to contradict the claimant's stated reason for absence. The unfair dismissal claim was outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction, while the monetary claims remained undetermined for later case management.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination allegations were out of time; the Tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time and refused the amendment application. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Sex-related harassment allegations were out of time; the Tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time and refused the amendment application. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | The proposed failure to make reasonable adjustments claim about a chair was out of time; the Tribunal refused permission to amend. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Disability-related harassment allegations arising before the claimant went off sick in January 2019 were out of time; the Tribunal refused permission to amend. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The June 2019 welfare-call disability-related harassment allegation was in time but was struck out under Rule 37 as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.123(1) Equality Act 2010
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link
- Adedeji v University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership
- Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore
- Rule 37 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- Anyanwu v South Bank Students Union
- ABN Amro Management Services Ltd & RBS v Hogben
- Cox v Adecco
- Rule 39 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.