Case 3300002/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs Jennifer Schroeter v MacBeattie Recruitment Ltd t/as ROC Recruitment — 2023

Case reference: 3300002/2023
Decision date: 20 December 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Laidler

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs Jennifer Schroeter

Respondent

MacBeattie Recruitment Ltd t/as ROC Recruitment

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mrs Jennifer Schroeter brought claims against MacBeattie Recruitment Ltd t/a ROC Recruitment. The tribunal, sitting alone before Employment Judge Laidler at Bury St Edmunds on 3 November 2023, dealt with the claims as preliminary jurisdictional issues and did not make any remedy award.

The race discrimination complaint, described as a complaint of less favourable treatment on the grounds of race, was found not to have been presented within the applicable time limit. The tribunal decided it was not just and equitable to extend time, and the claim was dismissed on that basis.

The unfair dismissal claim was struck out because the claimant had not obtained the requisite 2 years' service to be entitled to bring such a claim. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that the judgment was sent to the parties on 20 December 2023.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Race discrimination	The complaint of less favourable treatment on the grounds of race was held to be out of time. The tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit.	Dismissed	Race	—
Unfair dismissal	The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out because the claimant had not obtained the requisite 2 years' service to bring the claim.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.