Ms A Khan v Brook Street (UK) Limited — 2022

Ms A Khan brought a race discrimination claim arising from the respondent's rejection of a birth certificate she had submitted during a recruitment process for a temporary Customer Service Assistant role. The tribunal recorded that on 16 November 2020 Ms Lucie Ospalkova told her the birth certificate could not be accepted because it needed to be the original one issued after birth, and the claimant was then not taken further for the role. The claimant later said that, on 26 May 2021, her work coach Susan told her that her brother had secured employment through the respondent and had submitted the same kind of certified birth certificate, which had been accepted.

At the open preliminary hearing the respondent applied to strike out the claim and for a deposit order, arguing that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and lacked sufficient specification. The tribunal dismissed both applications. It held that the central issue, namely the reason for the rejection of the claimant's birth certificate, was disputed and would require findings of fact after a full hearing. The tribunal also accepted that a fair trial remained possible and referred to the discrimination authorities it had cited, including the approach to strike out and deposit orders in discrimination cases and the higher threshold identified in Balls.

The tribunal also considered limitation. It accepted that the claim had been presented outwith the usual three-month period, but found it just and equitable to extend time under section 123(1) of the Equality Act 2010. In reaching that view, the tribunal accepted the claimant's account that she did not appreciate there could have been different treatment until 26 May 2021, that she then acted promptly by making a formal complaint on 4 June 2021, contacting ACAS on 15 June 2021, and lodging the claim on 1 July 2021 after receiving ACAS advice. Applying the Keeble factors, it found the delay had minimal impact on the cogency of the evidence and little prejudice to the respondent, and therefore held that it had jurisdiction to hear the claim.