Claimant v Tuffin Ferraby Taylor (TFT) Ltd

Claimant lacked two years' continuous employment for unfair dismissal jurisdiction. Claim withdrawn by claimant during hearing.

Claims at 2.2.1-2.2.10 and 2.2.11.2 were out of time (before 4 November 2023) and tribunal found it not just and equitable to extend time. Even on merits, all allegations failed — none of the factual bases were established or, where established, treatment was not because of race.

Harassment claims mirrored direct discrimination allegations. Those before 4 November 2023 were out of time and not just and equitable to extend. On merits, none succeeded — conduct not related to race, or did not meet the high threshold of violating dignity or creating a hostile environment.

In-time claims (2.2.11.3, 2.2.11.4, 2.2.12, 2.2.13) all failed on merits. Example: allegation of shouting/swearing (2.2.11.3) — one instance of swearing by line manager not directed at claimant, caused by claimant's own belligerent behaviour, not related to race. Dismissal claim failed as claimant not constructively dismissed — no fundamental breach, claimant resigned due to other reasons (pressure over confidentiality breaches, obstructive behaviour).

In-time harassment claims failed. Tribunal found conduct either did not occur or was not related to race. Example: handover meeting with colleague present was reasonable management decision, not harassment. Claimant's own behaviour (argumentative, belligerent) caused any difficulty.

Claimant sought to amend to add indirect sex discrimination claim (section 19A EQA) regarding requirement to increase office days from 2 to 3. Tribunal refused amendment: claim unclear, out of time, would cause postponement, and tribunal's preliminary reading indicated PCP likely not applied. After hearing all evidence, tribunal confirmed PCP was not established — claimant was never required to increase office days — so claim would have failed at first hurdle.