Case 3304684/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 3304684/2020
- Decision date
- 26 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on strike out and deposit issues. The claimant, a Senior Lecturer in Behavioural Economics, was dismissed for gross misconduct on 20 December 2019 and presented his claim on 15 May 2020. The tribunal recorded claims including unfair dismissal, sex discrimination, notice pay, and allegations of bullying, harassment and victimisation. The judgment addressed only the sex discrimination, harassment and victimisation complaints based on treatment before 7 October 2019.
The tribunal identified the alleged pre-dismissal treatment as failed promotion applications in July 2016, February 2017, 28 February 2018, 28 January 2019 and 22 February 2019; the handling of grievances made by and against the claimant between March and June 2018 and in February 2019; alleged hostile treatment on return from sick leave in February 2018 and again in November 2018; and denial of sabbatical leave in June/July and September 2019. It held that these matters were a series of distinct acts, not a continuing act of discrimination, and that time ran from the completion of each act. The tribunal referred to section 123 Equality Act 2010, Amies v Inner London Education Authority, and Aziz v FDA in reaching that conclusion.
Having found the pre-7 October 2019 matters to be prima facie out of time, the tribunal considered whether it would be just and equitable to extend time and decided not to do so. It noted that the claimant had union advice during the relevant periods, had researched the position online but wrongly believed he could not bring a tribunal claim until he resigned or his employment ended, and could and should have brought claims sooner if he considered that he had been discriminated against on the grounds of sex. The tribunal also took account of the age of the allegations and the effect of delay on recollection. It therefore struck out the sex discrimination, harassment and victimisation claims arising from treatment before 7 October 2019. The judgment noted that the disciplinary investigation on 7 October 2019 and the dismissal on 20 December 2019 were in time, but it did not determine those claims in this preliminary ruling.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal held that alleged sex discrimination based on treatment before 7 October 2019 was out of time, there was no continuing act extending the limitation period, and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal struck out the harassment claim insofar as it arose from treatment before 7 October 2019, finding it out of time and refusing to extend time. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal struck out the victimisation claim insofar as it arose from treatment before 7 October 2019, finding it out of time and refusing to extend time. | Struck out | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- continuing act discrimination
- just and equitable extension of time
- Amies v Inner London Education Authority [1977] ICR 308 EAT
- Aziz v FDA [2010] EWCA Civ 304
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.