Cases6003335/2024

Claimant v Amazon UK Services Limited

8 April 2025Before Employment Judge Victoria ButlerNottinghamin person

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Direct Discrimination(disability)not determined

This was the claimant's original claim. This preliminary hearing dealt only with an application to amend to add a further claim; the original disability discrimination claim was not determined and will proceed to final hearing.

Direct Discrimination(race)not determined

This was the claimant's original claim. This preliminary hearing dealt only with an application to amend to add a further claim; the original race discrimination claim was not determined and will proceed to final hearing.

Direct Discrimination(sex)not determined

This was the claimant's original claim. This preliminary hearing dealt only with an application to amend to add a further claim; the original sex discrimination claim was not determined and will proceed to final hearing.

Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments(disability)struck out

Claimant's application to amend to add this claim was dismissed. The tribunal found it was an entirely new claim, not a re-labelling; it was out of time with no explanation for delay; and there was a fundamental flaw as the claimant failed to identify a proper PCP applicable to all employees rather than personal issues. Balance of hardship favoured the respondent.

Facts

The claimant brought claims of direct discrimination on grounds of race, sex and disability. After issues were agreed at a preliminary hearing in September 2024, she applied in November 2024 to amend her claim to add a claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments. She provided no explanation for the delay in making the application. The respondent conceded disability (anxiety and depression) but opposed the amendment. The application came before the tribunal on two occasions as further particulars were required.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed the application to amend. It found the reasonable adjustments claim was an entirely new claim, not a re-labelling of existing claims. The claimant gave no explanation for delay, rendering the claim out of time. Fundamentally, the claimant failed to identify proper PCPs applicable to all employees; instead she cited personal issues relating only to herself. The balance of hardship favoured the respondent, and allowing the amendment would require investigation of something that could not be properly investigated.

Practical note

A claimant seeking to amend to add a reasonable adjustments claim must identify a proper provision, criterion or practice that applies generally and places them at a substantial disadvantage, not merely list personal management failures specific to them.

Legal authorities cited

Selkent Bus Company Limited v Moore [1996] ICR 836Choudhury v Cerberus Security and Monitoring Services Limited (2002) EAT 172

Statutes

EqA 2010

Case details

Case number
6003335/2024
Decision date
8 April 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
retail
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
No