Claimant v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Outcome
Individual claims
Claimant had only 14 months' continuous service and did not meet the two years' continuous service requirement under s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996. Claim struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Tribunal found claimant could not establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination. The matters relied on related to the reasonableness of dismissal, not the mind of the decision maker. There was no evidence or information suggesting the respondent treated him differently because of his sex. Claim struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Claimant's application to amend to add wrongful dismissal claim was refused. The claim was a new cause of action first raised on 13 July 2025, over 6 months after dismissal on 14 January 2025, and thus out of time. Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for claim to have been presented in time or by 25 May 2025, and did not extend time.
Facts
The claimant was employed by the Department for Work and Pensions as an executive work coach at Acton job centre from 13 November 2023 to 14 January 2025. He was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct after a female customer complained about his behaviour towards her. Following an investigation, the respondent substantiated the allegations, which related to inappropriate contact and cultivating a relationship with the customer, including engaging with her on social media. The claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal and sex discrimination, and subsequently sought to amend his claim to add wrongful dismissal.
Decision
The tribunal refused the amendment to add wrongful dismissal as it was a new claim presented out of time with no reasonable practicability explanation. The unfair dismissal claim was struck out because the claimant had only 14 months' service and did not meet the two-year qualifying period. The sex discrimination claim was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success because the claimant could not establish a prima facie case—his complaints related to the reasonableness of his dismissal rather than providing evidence his sex was a factor in the decision.
Practical note
Litigants in person must understand the distinction between different causes of action and time limits; complaints about procedural unfairness in dismissal do not, without more, establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on a protected characteristic.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6013763/2025
- Decision date
- 16 December 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- central government
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Executive Work Coach
- Service
- 1 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No