In person For the v Respondent — 2020

At a preliminary hearing on 19 October 2020, Employment Judge Finlay struck out the claimant's complaints of direct race discrimination, direct sex discrimination, harassment and victimisation under Rule 37(1)(a). The judge held that, even taking the claimant's case at its highest and allowing for her status as a litigant in person and her ill health, the material before the tribunal did not provide a reasonable prospect of showing that race or sex caused the treatment complained of.

The tribunal noted that the claimant had referred to colleagues being Caucasian and male and had suggested that they may have disliked her because of her afro-Caribbean ethnicity or culture, but it found that this amounted to speculation rather than evidential support. It also found no adequate protected act or causal connection for victimisation: the complaints relied on did not clearly allege race or sex discrimination, and the statement said to be a protected act from 2014 was not shown to support a victimisation claim.

On the unfair dismissal complaint, the respondent's application for a deposit order was refused. The judge considered that there was material on which a tribunal could conclude that the dismissal was unfair under s.98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, including the claimant's objections to Mr Capp's independence, her contention that she was not well enough to attend the disciplinary process, the time allowed for appeal preparation, and the handling of the grievance and disciplinary process. No final liability decision on unfair dismissal was made at this hearing.