Cases1403603/2020

Claimant v Thales DIS (UK) Limited

9 June 2025Before Employment Judge GraySouthamptonin person

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Direct Discrimination(sex)not determined

Preliminary issue only: tribunal decided it was just and equitable to extend time to allow the sex discrimination claim (complaint dated 23 April 2018) to proceed to full hearing. Merits not yet determined.

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)not determined

Preliminary issue only: tribunal decided it was just and equitable to extend time to allow the disability discrimination claims (last complaint dated 31 May 2018) to proceed to full hearing. Respondent conceded claimant was disabled due to anxiety and depression, dyslexia, autism, ADHD, and learning difficulties. Merits not yet determined.

Facts

The claimant was employed by the respondent (formerly Gemalto) for 19 years and was dismissed on 8 August 2018. He raised grievances about his supervisor Mr Mercer in July 2017 and April 2018. An incident with Mr Mercer occurred on 31 May 2018. The claimant brought a first tribunal claim in November 2018 for unfair dismissal only, which was dismissed as out of time. He brought this second claim in July 2020 for sex discrimination, and later sought to amend to add disability discrimination in March 2021. The respondent conceded he was disabled due to anxiety, depression, dyslexia, autism, ADHD and learning difficulties. The claims were substantially out of time (nearly 2 years for sex discrimination, over 2.5 years for disability discrimination).

Decision

The tribunal decided it was just and equitable to extend time to allow both the sex and disability discrimination claims to proceed to a full merits hearing. The judge accepted the claimant believed he had to exhaust the employer's grievance process first, thought he was 'deadlocked' into only claiming unfair dismissal after a Regional Employment Judge's decision on his first claim, and that his understanding and actions were impaired by his undisputed mental health challenges. The respondent had not demonstrated real evidential prejudice, and the prejudice to the claimant of losing his claims outweighed the prejudice to the respondent of defending them.

Practical note

Significant delays in bringing discrimination claims may be excused on just and equitable grounds where a claimant with mental health disabilities genuinely misunderstood the tribunal process, believed they had to exhaust internal procedures first, and the respondent cannot show real evidential prejudice because it was aware of the allegations through contemporaneous grievances.

Legal authorities cited

Vaughan v Modality Partnership UKEAT/0147/20/BA(V)Keeble v British Coal Corporation [1997] IRLR 336Robertson v Bexley Community Centre [2003] IRLR 434London Borough of Southwark v Afolabi [2003] IRLR 220Miller v Ministry of Justice EAT 0003/15

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.120Limitation Act 1980 s.33Equality Act 2010 s.123(1)

Case details

Case number
1403603/2020
Decision date
9 June 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
2
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
technology
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Employment details

Service
19 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No