Miss P O Muchilwa v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council and 1 other — 2017

At a preliminary hearing on 17 November 2016, Employment Judge Feeney struck out three claims under rule 37: disability discrimination in relation to toilet breaks, disability discrimination in relation to flat shoes, and religion or belief discrimination in relation to the Channel referral. The respondent had argued that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success and, in the alternative, sought deposit orders.

On the disability allegations, the tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that management's concern was the amount of time the claimant spent talking to colleagues, not toilet breaks. It therefore found no factual basis for a reasonable adjustments claim framed around toilet access. On footwear, the tribunal held that the complaint was about trainers rather than flat shoes and that the claim was factually unsustainable on the case as pleaded. It said the claimant could apply to amend that allegation within 14 days if she meant a no-trainers provision and could support it with medical evidence.

On the religion or belief claim, the tribunal found that the Channel referral was made because of material thought to relate to terrorist or ISIS content and statements about assassination, not because the claimant was perceived to be Muslim or associated with Muslims. It held that a direct discrimination claim on that basis was misconceived, and it did not consider indirect discrimination because the claimant said she was not pursuing it. The tribunal also noted a potential limitation issue, but made no limitation ruling because the strike-out disposed of the claims. It said it would have ordered deposits of £50 for each disability claim and £300 for the Channel referral, having regard to the claimant's means, but no monetary award was made.