Claimant v Maximus UK Services Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Struck out on jurisdictional grounds. Claim presented almost 2 months late and tribunal found it would not be just and equitable to extend time. Tribunal noted claim had weaknesses including failure to provide dates of alleged acts and lack of evidence on 'because of' causation with no actual comparator identified.
Struck out on jurisdictional grounds. Claim presented almost 2 months late and tribunal found it would not be just and equitable to extend time. Tribunal noted claimant failed to particularise the provision, criterion or practice despite being ordered to do so, and any potential PCP formulated from the facts provided would have little chance of success.
Discriminatory dismissal claim struck out on jurisdictional grounds. Dismissal occurred 1 July 2024 and claim was not presented within the statutory time limit. Tribunal found it would not be just and equitable to extend time given claimant's failure to take reasonable steps to inform herself of her rights.
Facts
Dr Kutsawa was employed as a registered medical practitioner from 17 April 2024 and dismissed on 1 July 2024 with two weeks' pay in lieu of notice. She brought claims of race discrimination (direct discrimination during employment) and disability discrimination (failure to make reasonable adjustments focusing on occupational health referral issues in February 2024, and discriminatory dismissal). After dismissal, she contacted her local MP's office on 22 July 2024 for guidance, but did not receive advice to contact ACAS until 14 November 2024. She contacted ACAS on 19 November and filed her claim on 25 November 2024, almost 2 months after the statutory deadline of 30 September 2024.
Decision
The tribunal struck out all claims on jurisdictional grounds, finding the claim was presented almost 2 months late and it would not be just and equitable to extend the time limit. The tribunal found the claimant's ignorance of her rights was not reasonable because she took no steps to carry out independent research (e.g., Google search) despite being a highly qualified professional working in a technology-enabled profession. The balance of prejudice favored the respondent, particularly given weaknesses identified in the claims including lack of dates for alleged acts and failure to properly particularise the PCP for reasonable adjustments despite tribunal orders.
Practical note
A claimant's reliance on advice from a third party (such as an MP's office) will not excuse late presentation where the claimant fails to take reasonable independent steps to inform themselves of their tribunal rights, particularly where the claimant is a qualified professional with access to information resources.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8001960/2024
- Decision date
- 19 May 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Registered Medical Practitioner
- Service
- 3 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No