Claimant v Maximus UK Services Ltd

The claimant complained that disciplinary action was threatened for being late when she had anxiety and PTSD, but no disciplinary charge was ever advanced and she remains employed. The tribunal found it cannot be a reasonable adjustment not to consider disciplinary action for lateness or to inform an employee of such consideration. The claim was also made outside the primary time limit and the claimant was aware she could make tribunal claims.

The claimant alleged her manager showed younger colleagues how to use new Excel systems and build appointments but not her, telling her three times 'some people are better at customer services than computers'. The tribunal found this claim had reasonable prospects of success, applying experience that older people are sometimes assumed to be afraid of new technology. This claim continues, subject to time extension considerations.

The claimant alleged colleagues said they did not want to work with her after she raised a grievance about team management. The tribunal found her being the oldest member of the team was purely coincidental to this treatment. Her race was also purely coincidental. The claim had no reasonable prospect of success.

The claimant, a Seventh Day Adventist who left work early on Fridays (with loss of pay) for religious observance, alleged her Hindu line manager Ms Metha said to a colleague she wished she could go home early and it would be nice if she had a religious reason to do so. The tribunal found this was not less favourable treatment because of religious belief, was more akin to harassment (and trivial at that), and was well out of time.

The claim originally stated in the further information as direct sex discrimination was clarified by the claimant to be part of her harassment claim. No separate claim of direct sex discrimination was properly articulated with sufficient precision to proceed.

The claimant alleged her manager Mr Hernandez called her 'Lovely Jacquie' knowing she had complained about sexual harassment by security guards. The tribunal found this was plainly capable of being harassment within s.26 EqA 2010 and allowed this claim to continue. However, other harassment allegations concerning security staff employed by third parties were too imprecise or not within the respondent's legal responsibility and were struck out.

The claim of public interest disclosure detriment was markedly imprecise. The claimant complained about 'what was happening in the office' and that colleagues used third parties 'to cause chaos'. The alleged detriment was to 'operate as a Mafia type of group'. The tribunal found these allegations too unspecific and insufficiently precise to be capable of being responded to, with no reasonable prospect of success.