Miss Invana Jurcevic v Countrywide Group plc and 2 others — 2017

This was an open preliminary hearing on 9 and 10 January 2020 before Employment Judge Michell sitting alone. Miss Invana Jurcevic had worked for the second respondent from September 2014 until she resigned without notice on 3 November 2017. Her ET1, presented on 22 January 2018, alleged unfair constructive dismissal, unpaid holiday and notice pay, arrears of pay, and sex, race, age and disability discrimination. The tribunal accepted that the second respondent was the employer and described the claim as vague and hard to discern.

Applying the amendment, time-limit and strike-out authorities it cited, the tribunal refused permission to add new discrimination allegations. It held that the age, sex, race and disability discrimination claims were all out of time and, alternatively, had no reasonable prospect of success. It also found that the claimant had not shown that she was disabled within s.6 Equality Act 2010 at the material time, because her anxiety and low mood during February to November 2017 did not satisfy the long-term requirement. The tribunal did not accept that she had made a contemporaneous complaint that sex or race explained the treatment of which she complained, and it found her delay in bringing Equality Act claims was not just and equitable to extend.

On the individual discrimination allegations, the tribunal rejected the long-hours contention, noting that she was off sick in June and July 2017 and that return-to-work discussions had not yet arisen. It also said the analytics-job allegation was fundamentally contradictory and would in any event have been out of time. The proposed new race allegation based on a June 2016 supervisor remark was not allowed, and the broader race and disability amendments were also refused.

The unlawful deduction of wages claim was not dismissed at this stage. The judge considered that handwritten notes might support an arguable contractual promise of incremental rises up to £36,000, but not the claimant's case for £42,000. He therefore made a £500 deposit order as a condition of continuing that claim. A similar £500 deposit order was made for the unfair (constructive) dismissal claim. The judge considered the constructive dismissal case at best weak, but said that a continuing failure to pay salary due might in principle assist the claimant; he did not treat the 6 October 2017 HR email as undue pressure or as a viable last straw. The holiday pay claim was left to proceed on a 20-day holiday year basis.