Case 3212931/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S. Harvey v Iceland Foods Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3212931/2020
- Decision date
- 3 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hallen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S. Harvey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought disability discrimination complaints arising from her employment with Iceland Foods Limited. The respondent conceded disability, but not knowledge. The tribunal held that the reasonable adjustments complaints were discrete workplace matters ending, at the latest, when the claimant began sickness absence on 7 April 2020, and were not part of a continuing course of conduct linked to the later 26 August 2020 incident.
The tribunal found the reasonable adjustments claim was out of time and declined to extend time on just and equitable grounds. It accepted the claimant had been unwell but found insufficient evidence that she was incapable of starting ACAS early conciliation or presenting a claim within time, and did not accept that lack of knowledge justified the delay.
The direct disability discrimination complaint about 26 August 2020 was held to be in time. The harassment allegations concerning 5 April 2020, 16 April 2020, and 26 August 2020 were allowed to proceed because the tribunal considered it possible that, if the claimant's case about management gossip concerning her health were established, the April matters might form part of a continuing course of conduct. The tribunal refused strike out and deposit order applications because relevant factual disputes required evidence at the final hearing.
The claimant's application to amend to add race discrimination allegations was refused. The tribunal considered those allegations substantially out of time, involving a different alleged actor and a significant expansion of the factual and legal enquiry, and found the prejudice to the respondent in allowing the amendment outweighed the prejudice to the claimant in refusing it.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 was held out of time, and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability under section 26 Equality Act 2010, concerning alleged conduct on 5 April 2020, 16 April 2020, and by amendment 26 August 2020, was not struck out or made subject to a deposit order. The tribunal left the merits and continuing course of conduct issue for the final hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010 concerning 26 August 2020 was held to be in time and was not struck out or made subject to a deposit order. The merits were left for the final hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The claimant's application for leave to amend to add race discrimination allegations was refused; the race discrimination claim was not added. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
15 references- sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
- just and equitable extension of time
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership
- Selkent factors
- Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 rule 37
- Teesside Public Transport Company Limited v Riley
- Balls v Downham Market High School & College
- A v B
- Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 rule 39
- Arthur v Hertfordshire Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust
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.