Destiny Devlin v Leon Kennedy Ltd — 2026

Destiny Devlin worked for Leon Kennedy Limited as a Burger King crew member from 25 June 2022 until 22 April 2023 and was 16 throughout her employment. Taking her account at its highest for the preliminary issues, the tribunal recorded that she said she had not intended to resign after being told to take a break, but was subsequently informed that management regarded her as having quit without notice and had removed her from the rota.

The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 as having no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal described the complaint in its reasons as constructive unfair dismissal and found that Devlin lacked the two years of continuous employment required by section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. She had not identified a statutory basis for an automatically unfair dismissal claim, and the tribunal stated that discrimination is not itself a reason making a dismissal automatically unfair.

Devlin commenced ACAS early conciliation on 28 March 2025, received the certificate on 14 April 2025 and presented her ET1 on 16 April 2025, nearly two years after her employment ended. The ET1 alleged race discrimination and unfair dismissal. Although she also referred at the preliminary hearing to sex discrimination, age discrimination and sexual harassment, she had not applied to amend the claim, so those matters were not adjudicated as separate claims.

On the race discrimination complaint, the tribunal accepted that Devlin had been unaware of her rights and considered her age, workplace inexperience, stated mental and financial difficulties, and belief that police contact with management was the available resolution. It nevertheless found that she could reasonably have investigated her rights while researching young people's employment rights and discussing events with her sister, who worked in HR. The tribunal also found that part of the delay arose because she had decided not to pursue a legal complaint while she believed management had changed.

Balancing the prejudice and hardship to both parties, the tribunal found that the lengthy delay significantly prejudiced the respondent's ability to defend the claim because no contemporaneous complaint or investigation existed, potential witnesses might no longer be contactable and their recollections might have deteriorated. It also considered the lack of particularisation in the claim form. The tribunal therefore declined to extend time on a just and equitable basis and dismissed the race discrimination complaint without determining its merits. No monetary remedy was awarded or addressed.