Mr A Pirzada v Debbie Archer — 2023

The claimant brought claims against Debbie Archer. The tribunal recorded that she was an employee of Reed Specialist Recruitment Limited, but the claimant said he wanted to claim against Debbie Archer rather than Reed. He also said he had never been employed by Debbie Archer. On that basis, the tribunal held that claims that can only be brought against an employer or equivalent worker were not capable of proceeding against this respondent, and struck out the unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, breach of contract, and unlawful deductions from wages claims.

The claimant had originally mentioned race, religion, disability, and sex discrimination, but he disavowed any religious discrimination claim during the hearing. The tribunal identified the main discrimination allegation as direct disability discrimination: the claimant said that when the respondent learned of his alleged disabilities, she deemed him unfit to work in college settings delivering further education physics lessons. The tribunal assumed in the claimant's favour, for the purposes of the application, that he had been put forward for at least one job and had undergone a medical examination with Reed Specialist Recruitment Limited, although that was disputed by the respondent.

The claimant also advanced subsidiary race and sex discrimination claims, saying that he was a south Asian man and relying on statistics about underrepresentation. The tribunal said those allegations sat uneasily with the disability case and doubted whether general statistics could support an inference of race or sex discrimination, but it did not need to resolve the merits because the claims were time-barred. The claim was presented in September 2022, the last contact with the respondent was in November 2021, and the tribunal considered the alleged discriminatory acts to have arisen in the first half of 2021, around a year out of time.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's explanation that he had needed time to assemble his papers because of his disability. It concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of the claimant persuading a full tribunal that it would be just and equitable to extend time. Because of that, the disability, race, and sex discrimination claims were struck out. The judge added that, if time had not been an issue, he would have considered a small deposit order of about £10 for each of the race and sex allegations. The hearing listed for January 2024 was cancelled.