Miss S Gordon v River Island — 2020

Miss S Gordon presented her claim on 18 May 2019. The tribunal applied the three-month time limit under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 and considered whether the pre-maternity complaints could be treated as part of a continuing act. It referred to Hendricks, Lyfar and Aziz when deciding whether the allegations were linked, and found that the pregnancy and maternity complaints were discrete acts rather than an ongoing state of affairs.

The pregnancy and maternity discrimination complaints concerned a written warning on 31 January 2018 and an argument with Vlad on 1 February 2018. The tribunal accepted that the Claimant had personal reasons for delay, including bereavement, health issues and domestic difficulties, but held that the delay was over a year, that she knew of Tribunal and Equality Act rights, and that the Respondent would be prejudiced by the absence of key witnesses. It refused to extend time as just and equitable and dismissed those complaints.

The harassment complaints were also found to be out of time. They concerned an argument with Tim on 1 November 2017 and a racially inappropriate comment by Mr Sullivan around 26 January 2018. The tribunal held that these were separate incidents with no continuing course of conduct after maternity leave began, and it again refused to extend time. It noted that the complaint about Mr Sullivan was about the comment itself, not the outcome of the grievance process.

The reasonable-adjustments complaints arising after the Claimant returned to work were not struck out. The tribunal applied the strike-out approach in Balls v Downham Market High School & College and the deposit-order approach under rule 39, with reference to Spring v First Capital East Ltd. It found that the current pleaded case had little reasonable prospect of success and ordered deposits of £20 for each of five alleged failures: providing a locker at an appropriate height, providing rest breaks, providing mental health training, allocating a single manager for contact and welfare checks, and allowing warm clothing on the shop floor. No final decision on the merits of those disability claims was made at this preliminary hearing.