Claimant v Popescu v Midas Care Ltd — 2019

At a preliminary hearing on 2 May 2019 before Employment Judge Laidler, sitting alone, Mrs V Popescu's 2016 and 2017 allegations were treated as background only. To the extent they were pursued as discrete race discrimination complaints, they were struck out as significantly out of time, with no evidence that it would be just and equitable to extend time.

The tribunal refused leave to amend to add a direct race discrimination allegation based on the 2016 investigation compared with Mr S, holding that Mr S was not an appropriate comparator and that the proposed complaint had no reasonable prospects of success. It also refused leave to amend two alleged race harassment complaints: the August 2018 house visit, and the later allegation about the delayed provision of the claimant's contract, the latter being out of time and not previously pleaded.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant could argue that the 5 August 2018 letter was a protected act and that the investigation against her proceeded because of it as race victimisation. It also accepted that her resignation could be argued as another act of victimisation under section 39(4) of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal further said that the claimant could rely on the house visit and the non-provision of her contract in relation to her constructive dismissal claim, and that the constructive unfair dismissal claims under the Equality Act 2010 and the Employment Rights Act 1996, together with the victimisation claim, would proceed pending further particulars and a schedule of loss.