Case 3303896/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 3303896/2020
- Decision date
- 25 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams
- Venue
- Watford via CVP
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Hyams, sitting alone at Watford via CVP on 24 January 2022, heard the respondent's strike-out application. The claimant's section 39 Equality Act 2010 complaints were struck out because they were presented outside the three-month primary limitation period and there was no reasonable prospect of showing that it would be just and equitable to extend time under section 123(1)(b).
The ET1 was presented on 12 April 2020. ACAS was approached on 6 February 2020 and the early conciliation certificate was issued on 3 March 2020, so only acts on or after 19 December 2019 were in time. The latest alleged act was around September 2019, when the claimant said she was refused work from the incoming and pick departments. Earlier allegations went back to 2015 and included complaints about extra hours, removal from storing, comments in 2018 said to relate to anxiety and depression, and 2019 sickness-absence and return-to-work issues.
The tribunal held there was no realistic basis for a just and equitable extension. It relied on the claimant's awareness of the Equality Act by late August or early September 2019, her contact with ACAS and the Citizens Advice Bureau, the legal advice she had obtained about her HR file, and her ability to produce a detailed grievance, appeal and submissions within the limitation period. The gap between the final alleged act and the filing date, the lack of financial loss from the final work-refusal allegation, and the claimant's explanation that she was not in the right head space led the judge to strike out the claims without any merits determination or award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Includes the 2015 allegation that the claimant was told she could not apply for extra hours because she had children, and the 2017 allegation that she was removed from storing because the department required a strong team of men. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Includes the July/August 2018 comments recorded by the tribunal, including 'fix your face', the drugs question, and other remarks the claimant said were humiliating and related to anxiety and depression. | Struck out | — | — |
| Victimisation | Includes the allegations that the claimant was placed on a 'to watch' list, that colleagues said she should not be on the apprenticeship scheme, and that her progression at H&M was purposely hindered. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Covers the remaining 2019 return-to-work, sickness-absence, HR-file and work-allocation allegations recorded in the judgment, including the refusal of work from the incoming and pick departments, which the tribunal did not separately label as a distinct statutory claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- s.123(1)(b) EqA 2010
- s.123(3)(a) EqA 2010
- s.123(3)(b) EqA 2010
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Caston v Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Bowden v Ministry of Justice
- Averns v Stagecoach in Warwickshire
- Department of Constitutional Affairs v O'Brien
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Robinson v Post Office
- Apelogun-Gabriels v London Borough of Lambeth
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.