Case 4102371/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms G O’Hare v Represented by Ms A Evans-Jones Solicitor Shoe Zone Retail Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 4102371/2020
- Decision date
- 11 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Robison
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms G O’Hare
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs G O'Hare started work as a shop assistant on 5 January 2018, was suspended on 28 November 2019, and was dismissed on 13 December 2019 while pregnant. She had told the respondent she was pregnant around mid-November 2019. She consulted solicitors on 29 November 2019 and again in January or February 2020, but she gave them the wrong dismissal date, telling them she had been dismissed on 18 December 2019. The tribunal accepted that she had mislaid the dismissal letter and, when she later found it, the paperwork showed the correct dismissal date.
The hearing was limited to limitation. The tribunal applied section 123 Equality Act 2010 and the authorities it cited on the broad just and equitable discretion, including DPP v Mills, Hutchison v Westward Television Ltd, Robertson v Bexley Community Centre, British Coal Corporation v Keeble, Southwark London Borough Council v Afolabi, and Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust. It accepted the claimant as a credible witness and found her to be young and inexperienced. The judge accepted that her confusion about dates was explained by the pressures she was under, including the pregnancy, a previous miscarriage, a rhesus negative result, hospital appointments, financial worries, and the stress of the emerging pandemic.
On the tribunal's calculations, the claim was at most seven weeks late. It found that the practical effect of the wrong dismissal date was that the respondent had only about five days less notice than it would have had if the date had been given correctly. The tribunal held there was no material impact on the cogency of the evidence, little or no prejudice to the respondent beyond having to defend the claim, and no failure by the claimant to seek advice promptly. It therefore held that it was just and equitable to extend time, and the pregnancy and sex discrimination complaint and the section 99 unfair dismissal claim were to proceed to a full hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Preliminary time-bar issue only. The tribunal found the pregnancy discrimination complaint was lodged out of time but that it was just and equitable to extend time under s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010, so the claim could proceed to a final hearing. | Other | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | Preliminary time-bar issue only. The tribunal referred to the matter as a pregnancy and sex discrimination claim and held that time should be extended under s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010, allowing the claim to proceed. | Other | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary time-bar issue only. The tribunal dealt with the section 99 automatic unfair dismissal claim, found it was out of time, and extended time as just and equitable under s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010 so that it could proceed. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- s.140B Equality Act 2010
- DPP v Mills
- Hutchison v Westward Television Ltd
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Southwark London Borough Council v Afolabi
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
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.