ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Case No: S/4101673/2017 Issued Following Open Preliminary Hearing Held at Edinburgh on th December 2018 Employment Judge: J G d’Inverno, QVRM, TD, VR, WS (Sitting Alone)10 Ms Kristina Simonsen v Represented by Mr K Sinclair, Lay Representative TNT UK Limited — 2019

The claimant brought complaints of indirect discrimination and harassment linked to disability, relying on autism as the protected characteristic. The indirect discrimination complaint arose from a temporary requirement imposed on 7 July 2016 for the claimant to cover frontline calls on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The harassment complaint concerned alleged remarks by Mr Brady on 17 August 2016 to the effect that the claimant was not autistic.

The tribunal held that the 7 July 2016 decision was a single act with continuing consequences, and that those consequences ended when the claimant returned to full duties and no longer had to do frontline work on 16 December 2016. It found that the limitation periods under section 123(1)(a) of the Equality Act 2010 therefore expired on 6 October 2016 for the indirect discrimination claim and on 16 November 2016 for the harassment claim. The ET1 was not presented until 14 May 2017, after the expiry of both periods and after early conciliation had begun on 21 February 2017 and ended on 21 March 2017.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's case for an extension of time under section 123(1)(b). It preferred the evidence of ACAS conciliator Gwen Sinclair and the contemporaneous telephone log and emails, and found that she had not told the claimant's representative that the claimant would have three months from the end of early conciliation in which to present the claims. It also held that, even if such advice had been given, the representative already understood the correct position and was not entitled to rely on contrary advice without checking it. The tribunal dismissed both claims for want of jurisdiction. It noted that other matters, including a pregnancy-related harassment allegation and a reasonable adjustments claim, remained outstanding for later case management.