Dr Linda Aloysius v University of East London — 2020

Dr Linda Aloysius brought claims of sex discrimination and age discrimination against the University of East London. The complaints concerned recruitment to part-time or hourly paid lecturer roles in October 2018, including the claimant's case that she was not offered a substantive 20% permanent post and was instead offered hourly paid lecturer work with less job security and lower pay. She relied on comparators identified as CFW, DC and SK, and also complained that SK received specialist training and later had his hours increased.

Employment Judge Tobin found that the claims were presented on 16 January 2020 after early conciliation from 12 December 2019 to 12 January 2020. Allowing for early conciliation, any claim before 13 September 2019 was prima facie out of time. The Tribunal held that all complaints were out of time: one by about two weeks and the other three by about 11 months. The Judge found the alleged acts were discrete acts with continuing consequences, not conduct extending over a period for the purpose of s123(3)(a) Equality Act 2010.

The Tribunal declined to extend time on a just and equitable basis. It was not satisfied with the claimant's explanation for why she learned of the possible discrimination only in early October 2019, and found that by the time she raised concerns with HR in October 2019 she should have been aware of the need to act promptly. The Judge also considered prejudice to the respondent, accepting that relevant recruitment documents and contemporaneous notes had not been retained, which would affect the cogency of evidence.

The Tribunal also recorded concerns about the merits. It described the claims as appearing speculative, with comparators offered different jobs from those applied for or undertaken by the claimant, and considered the complaint about SK's training and increased hours to have no apparent discriminatory basis because the comparators were in materially different circumstances under s23(1) Equality Act 2010. The sex and age discrimination claims were dismissed under s123 Equality Act 2010. The respondent's strike-out and deposit-order applications were dismissed because the proceedings had already been dismissed, and the claimant's application to amend was also dismissed.