Claimant v David Cargill House
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim was time barred. Claimant dismissed 18 April 2022, claim filed 12 November 2022. Post-employment correspondence (15 August 2022) did not meet s.108 EqA test as not closely connected to claimant's employment relationship (concerned his mother's employment). Tribunal declined to extend time under just and equitable test given three and a half month delay, unconvincing reasons, and forensic prejudice to respondent (key witness Mr Fyfe died in January 2024).
No cogent case of indirect discrimination was set out in claimant's further particulars. Claim was time barred for same reasons as direct discrimination claim and tribunal declined to extend time.
Claim was time barred. Claimant mentioned post-employment harassment claim but gave no evidence about it. Tribunal found claims out of time and declined to extend under just and equitable test.
Claimant argued letter of 20 April 2022 was protected act and Mr Fyfe's response was detriment. Tribunal found letter did not meet s.108(1)(a) test as not closely connected to claimant's employment (concerned mother's employment). Claim time barred and tribunal declined to extend time.
Claim not included in ET1 and never formally amended into claim. Latest alleged detriment was April or May 2022. Claim presented 12 November 2022 was out of time. Claimant presented no evidence showing it was not reasonably practicable to present claim in time under s.48(3) ERA.
Claim not included in ET1 and never formally amended into claim. Last alleged deduction was March 2022. Claim presented 12 November 2022 was time barred under s.23 ERA. Claimant presented no evidence showing it was not reasonably practicable to present claim in time.
Facts
Claimant was dismissed for misconduct on 18 April 2022 from his role as domestic staff at respondent's care home after 11 years' service. He filed unfair dismissal claim in June 2022 but did not include discrimination claims. In August 2022 he wrote to Mr Fyfe (chairman of trustees, whom he had never met) complaining about treatment of his mother who still worked at the care home. Mr Fyfe responded on 15 August 2022 denying the allegations. Claimant then filed separate discrimination claim in November 2022, arguing Mr Fyfe's response revealed race discrimination extending throughout his employment and that s.108 EqA post-employment provisions applied.
Decision
Tribunal found all claims were time barred. The post-employment correspondence with Mr Fyfe did not meet s.108 EqA test as it concerned the claimant's mother's employment relationship not his own, and showed no evidence of race discrimination. The tribunal declined to extend time under just and equitable test given the three and a half month delay, unconvincing reasons for delay, and significant forensic prejudice to respondent as Mr Fyfe (central to allegations) had died. Whistleblowing and wages claims were also time barred and never properly pleaded.
Practical note
Post-employment discrimination claims under s.108 EqA require close connection to the claimant's own former employment relationship, not to a family member's ongoing employment, and correspondence with third parties unknown during employment will not satisfy this test.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 4105998/2022
- Decision date
- 11 July 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- domestic staff
- Service
- 11 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No