Case 3306404/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms F v B&M Retail Ltd and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3306404/2022
- Decision date
- 27 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cotton Appearances
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms F
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing to decide whether the claimant was disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of depression, and whether sexual harassment claims about events involving Mr R in July 2021 and N in September 2021 were out of time. The Tribunal recorded that sexual harassment allegations against the second respondent concerning February 2022 were in time and could proceed, and those allegations were not determined by this judgment.
On disability, the Tribunal accepted that the claimant had a mental impairment at the material time and found that depression had a more than minor impact on some normal day-to-day activities around January to March 2022, including absence from work on 26 and 27 January 2022, poor sleep and eating, crying at work at times, possible effects on concentration, and the A&E attendance on 28 February 2022. It found insufficient evidence that the condition significantly affected her work performance before 25 January 2022 or her social interaction with others, and found that medication was unlikely to have materially changed the impact.
The Tribunal found the long-term requirement was not met. The significant impacts had not lasted 12 months by the material time and the evidence did not show that the impairment, at the necessary level of seriousness, was likely to continue for at least 12 months or likely to recur. The claimant was therefore not a disabled person at the relevant time.
On time limits, the Tribunal found the July 2021 and September 2021 harassment complaints were out of time. It rejected the argument that they formed part of conduct extending over a period, finding the allegations concerned different individuals, different conduct, and separate handling by the first respondent. It also held that it was not just and equitable to extend time, referring to the length of the delay, the reasons given, and prejudice to the first respondent because Mr R and N were no longer employees and relevant evidence, particularly concerning Mr R, was no longer available.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | At the preliminary hearing the Tribunal found the claimant was not, at the relevant time, a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010. The judgment states that if not disabled she is not able to claim disability discrimination; other claims were not determined at this hearing. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Sexual harassment allegation concerning Mr R in July 2021. The Tribunal found it was out of time, was not part of conduct extending over a period, and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Sexual harassment allegation concerning N in September 2021. The Tribunal found it was out of time, was not part of conduct extending over a period, and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- Equality Act 2010 Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of disability
- Cruickshank v Vaw Motorcast Ltd [2002] ICR 729
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- conduct extending over a period
- Barclays Bank plc v Kapur [1991] ICR 208
- Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2003] ICR 530
- just and equitable extension
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre [2003] IRLR 434
- Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police v Caston [2010] IRLR 327
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan [2018] IRLR 1050
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust [2021] EWCA Civ 23
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.