Case 2602327/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Grant v Staffordshire County Council — 2020
- Case reference
- 2602327/2019
- Decision date
- 22 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Grant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination following her dismissal on 4 April 2019. She had also originally claimed sex discrimination, but had confirmed at an earlier preliminary hearing that she was not pursuing that claim. The Tribunal considered only whether it had jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims, both of which the Claimant accepted were presented out of time.
For unfair dismissal, the Tribunal found that the Claimant should have presented her claim, or at least contacted ACAS, by 3 July 2019. She contacted ACAS on 8 July 2019 and the accepted claim was not presented until 19 August 2019. The Tribunal was not satisfied that it had not been reasonably practicable for her to present the claim in time, noting that she had trade union advice and that the evidence did not show that any menopause-related condition prevented timely presentation.
For disability discrimination, the Tribunal considered whether it was just and equitable to extend time. It found that the Claimant had not shown that menopause-related matters prevented her from presenting the claim in time, and that she had been advised by her trade union. The Tribunal also stated that, on the papers, it was not satisfied that the discrimination claim was strong. It therefore declined to extend time and dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction: the claim was presented out of time and the Claimant had not shown it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed because the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction: the claim was presented out of time and the Claimant had not satisfied the Tribunal that it was just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Marks and Spencer Plc v Williams-Ryan
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Limited
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Southwark LBC v Afolabi
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
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.