AA v Coca-Cola Europacific Partners — 2025

This was a reserved preliminary judgment on the respondent's application under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024 to strike out the claimant's direct disability discrimination complaint, and on the related rule 40 deposit-order application. The complaint concerned the respondent's investigation, suspension, disciplinary process and dismissal in July and August 2022.

The claimant said that after she was told in February 2021 that her separated husband had died following an attempted suicide, she later discovered in March 2021 that he was alive. She said PTSD and related difficulties affected her ability to deal with what followed. Her case included complaints about the way the 28 July 2022 meeting was handled, the accuracy of the minutes, the absence of medical or occupational health input, and the decision to continue the disciplinary process and dismiss her.

The respondent said the dismissal was for continued and deliberate dishonesty about her husband's death and related matters, and argued that the discrimination complaint had no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal applied the high threshold for strike out in discrimination cases, citing Anyanwu, Ezsias and Balls, and noted that it had to consider the claimant's case at its highest and be cautious about resolving disputed facts without evidence. It also referred to the burden of proof under s.136 Equality Act 2010 and the approach in Law Society v Bahl.

The tribunal held that there were disputed factual issues, including what happened at the 28 July 2022 meeting and what was in the minds of the decision-makers, which could not properly be resolved at this stage. It accepted that the claimant's pleaded case was not merely a bare assertion and that, if proved, the alleged treatment could call for explanation and potentially support an inference of discrimination. The respondent's application to strike out the direct disability discrimination complaint was dismissed, and the judgment notes that a separate order was sent in relation to the deposit-order application.