Claimant v L and others — 2021

The claimant, a Band 6 Occupational Therapist employed since 14 December 2015, alleged harassment by Z and E between September 2016 and 23 January 2018. She said the harassment was on the grounds of sex and/or sexual orientation, and she made Dignity at Work complaints in February 2018. She also advanced victimisation allegations against L arising after those complaints, and a disability discrimination claim was included in the claim form but later not pursued.

The tribunal first considered whether the harassment allegations and the victimisation allegations formed one continuing act. It held that they did not. The tribunal relied on the different nature of the allegations, the different people involved, the lack of overlap in timing, and the fact that the harassment case concerned comments whereas the victimisation case was said to involve ostracisation and management decisions. On that basis, the victimisation allegations did not extend the time for the harassment claims.

The tribunal then considered whether it was just and equitable to extend time for the harassment claims. Applying the section 123 Equality Act 2010 discretion and the authorities it cited, it refused an extension for L, Z and E. It noted that the claim was almost nine months late, that the claimant had union support and access to advice, that she returned to work in May 2018, and that she knew by July 2018 that Z's complaint was going to a disciplinary hearing but did not commence proceedings until January 2019. It accepted that the claimant had been ill and had been trying to resolve matters internally, but found the length of the delay and the effect on the cogency of evidence outweighed those factors.

For Z and E, the tribunal said the same general factors applied and added that there was no fault by either of them for the delay. It also recorded that E had understood matters to have been resolved at the March 2018 mediation and only learned later that an investigation was being undertaken in relation to her. The harassment claims against L, Z and E were therefore dismissed. The disability discrimination claim was dismissed on withdrawal, and the victimisation claims against L were found to remain within jurisdiction and were listed to proceed to a final hearing.