Ms G Radford v Hospital and Home Education — 2023

Ms Radford worked for Hospital and Home Education as a teaching assistant from 20 April 2020 until 8 September 2021. The tribunal recorded a series of absences following Covid and post-Covid fatigue, an informal welfare meeting on 15 December 2020, and an establishing-the-facts meeting on 10 June 2021 after a suspected access to confidential patient information. The claimant later resigned and started work for a new employer at the end of September 2021. She had notified ACAS on 31 August 2022 and the claim was accepted on 15 November 2022.

The tribunal found that, as pleaded, the discrimination complaint was connected to the meetings on 15 December 2020 and 10 June 2021 and to alleged failures to make adjustments for those meetings. It held that the claimant knew of the relevant acts at the time they occurred and had support and advice from her trade union from around December 2020 until August 2022. The tribunal rejected the claimant's explanation that her mental health prevented her from issuing proceedings in time, finding insufficient evidence that her physical or mental health stopped her from bringing the claim within the statutory period.

On limitation, the tribunal said the relevant time limit ran at least from 10 June 2021, and if not from that date then from the effective date of termination on 8 September 2021. In either case the claim was considerably out of time when presented. The tribunal noted that early conciliation did not assist because the claim was already out of time when ACAS was notified. Applying the just and equitable discretion under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010, and considering prejudice to both parties, it decided not to extend time.

The tribunal dismissed the claim under Rule 37 on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it outside the statutory time limit and there was no basis on which to extend time. The claimant had withdrawn her unfair dismissal claim before the hearing, so the determination addressed the remaining discrimination complaint only.