Cases2212599/2023

Claimant v Secretary of State for Defence

31 March 2025Before Employment Judge Adkinremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Direct Discrimination(race)struck out

All direct race discrimination allegations were brought out of time. The tribunal did not extend time and accordingly these claims were dismissed without determination on the substantive merits.

Harassment(race)struck out

Harassment on grounds of race was brought out of time. The tribunal did not extend time and the claim was dismissed. The tribunal also noted that on the merits, the alleged conduct was not related to race.

Victimisationpartly succeeded

All victimisation allegations save for 5.2.11 were brought out of time and dismissed. Allegation 5.2.11 (concerning Martyn Williams' appeal decision on 19 April 2023) was in time but dismissed on the substantive merits. The tribunal found Mr Williams' conclusions were based on evidence and not influenced by the protected act or the claimant's race.

Detrimentstruck out

Detriment under section 44 ERA 1996 (health and safety) was brought out of time (events in October 2021, claim presented July 2023). The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim in time and did not extend time.

Detrimentstruck out

Detriment under section 47C ERA 1996 (family and domestic leave) was brought out of time. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim in time and did not extend time.

Direct Discrimination(disability)struck out

Associative disability discrimination was brought out of time. The tribunal did not extend time and the claim was dismissed without determination on the substantive merits.

Facts

The claimant, a Black African civil servant at the Ministry of Defence, brought claims of race discrimination, victimisation, and detriments under the Employment Rights Act relating to performance management concerns raised by various managers between October 2021 and April 2023. The claimant received a double promotion to Senior Executive Officer in April 2020 but multiple managers subsequently raised concerns about his performance, communication style, attendance at meetings, and recording of working time. The claimant raised a formal grievance in January 2022 alleging discrimination and bullying. Internal investigations found in favour of the respondent's managers. The claimant withdrew claims against the individual respondents during the hearing.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed all claims. The vast majority of allegations were brought out of time (events mostly in 2021-2022, claim filed July 2023). The tribunal refused to extend time, finding no continuing act and that it was not just and equitable to do so for discrimination claims or reasonably practicable for ERA claims. The single in-time victimisation allegation (concerning an appeal decision in April 2023) was dismissed on the merits: the tribunal found the appeal manager's conclusions were based on evidence and not influenced by the protected act or the claimant's race.

Practical note

Claimants must present discrimination and ERA detriment claims within the statutory time limits; substantial delay (over a year in this case) without good reason will not be excused even where the claimant had prior tribunal experience and there were ongoing internal processes.

Legal authorities cited

Galilee v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis UKEAT/0207/16/RNIgen v Wong [2005] ICR 931

Statutes

Employment Rights Act 1996 s.47CEquality Act 2010 s.26Equality Act 2010 s.27Equality Act 2010 s.13Employment Rights Act 1996 s.44

Case details

Case number
2212599/2023
Decision date
31 March 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
10
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
military
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Senior Executive Officer (Project Manager)

Claimant representation

Represented
No