Case 4102115/2022 · Employment Tribunal
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4102115/2022 Held at Aberdeen by Cloud Video Platform on August 2022 Employment Judge J M Hendry Mrs N MacLennan v Assisted by Ms K Last &15 Ms C Attfield Lipspeakers & Ms D Glass, BSL Interpreter Royal Mail Group Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 4102115/2022
- Decision date
- 31 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Venue
- Aberdeen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4102115/2022 Held at Aberdeen by Cloud Video Platform on August 2022 Employment Judge J M Hendry Mrs N MacLennan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs MacLennan was found to be profoundly deaf and had worked for Royal Mail from 6 August 2018, later moving into a trainee manager role. The tribunal accepted that she experienced difficulties with training, support and communication, especially once masking during the COVID-19 pandemic made lip-reading harder, and that she received unwanted texts from a male manager in late 2019. It also recorded a grievance process in late 2020 and a further workplace incident on 29 March 2022.
The tribunal treated the case as alleging sex discrimination and disability discrimination, including complaints about lack of training and support, reasonable adjustments, direct and indirect disability discrimination, and possibly harassment in relation to the grievance-handling and later incident. It held that the complaints were brought outside the three-month time limit in section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010 and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. It rejected the suggestion that the events formed a continuing act for limitation purposes.
In deciding whether to extend time, the tribunal referred to Robertson v Bexley Community Centre, Chief Constable of Lincolnshire v Caston, DCA v Jones, British Coal Corporation v Keeble, Afolabi v Southwark London Borough Council, and Miller v The Ministry of Justice. It found the earlier matters were historic, noted that the respondent would face difficulty and expense investigating events years later, and considered that the claimant had opportunities to seek advice through colleagues, ACAS, unions and the internet but did not do so in time. The claims were therefore dismissed and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed on limitation grounds; the tribunal did not separately determine the merits of a distinct sex discrimination complaint. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | The disability allegations were treated as including complaints about training, support, reasonable adjustments, direct and indirect discrimination, and possibly harassment in relation to the grievance-handling and later incident; all were dismissed as out of time and not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Chief Constable of Lincolnshire v Caston
- DCA v Jones
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Afolabi v Southwark London Borough Council
- Miller v The Ministry of Justice
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.