In person For the v Respondent — 2023

The claimant, employed by the respondent since September 2014, brought claims of direct race discrimination, direct age discrimination and victimisation arising from events between 2015 and 2021. The tribunal found that the October 2015 complaint about heavy lifting did not allege a breach of the Equality Act and was not a protected act. It also found that the February 2017 request to change shifts was not refused and was handled promptly in line with the respondent's flexible working policy.

On the June 2019 grievance about alleged racial abuse, the tribunal found facts from which it could infer race discrimination because the grievance was not properly responded to and no outcome was given. However, it held that the relevant failure occurred on 14 September 2019, so the primary three-month time limit expired on 13 December 2019. Applying section 123 of the Equality Act 2010, and weighing the 17-month delay, the claimant's explanation, and the prejudice to the respondent caused by missing HR records, the tribunal refused to extend time as just and equitable. That meant the race discrimination complaint did not succeed.

The tribunal rejected the remaining age discrimination complaints and the victimisation claim. It found no evidence that age played any part in the later disciplinary and grievance matters in 2020 and 2021, including the bathroom-break investigation, the cheese-aisle matter, the high-vis vest grievance, and the December 2021 CCTV and replenishment investigation. On victimisation, the tribunal held that the 25 October 2015 email was not a protected act, although the 23 June 2019 email was, but it found no causal link between any protected act and the later treatment. No remedy was awarded because none of the claimant's complaints succeeded.