Cases1306154/2023

Claimant v Barclays Bank UK PLC

12 March 2025Before Employment Judge FloodBirminghamin person

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Direct Discrimination(pregnancy)not determined

This preliminary hearing determined only the jurisdiction/time limit issue. The tribunal found it just and equitable to extend time, allowing the claim to proceed to final hearing. Merits have not yet been determined.

Direct Discrimination(sex)not determined

This preliminary hearing determined only the jurisdiction/time limit issue. The tribunal found it just and equitable to extend time, allowing the claim to proceed to final hearing. Merits have not yet been determined.

Facts

The claimant was seconded to an Operational Manager role for approximately 18 months before commencing maternity leave in January 2021. During her maternity leave, a male colleague was seconded into the role. Following a 2022 restructure, the respondent decided that employees seconded for more than 12 months as at 1 April 2022 would be pooled in their seconded roles. This resulted in the male colleague being permanently appointed to the Operational Manager role, while the claimant was not given the opportunity to apply. The claimant was informed of this decision on 9 March 2022 and raised a grievance on 10 March 2022 alleging sex and maternity discrimination. The respondent took 16 months to conclude the grievance and appeal process (outcome provided 18 July 2023). The claimant commenced ACAS early conciliation within two days and presented her claim on 26 September 2023, approximately 13 months out of time.

Decision

The tribunal found that the claims were presented out of time but decided to extend time on just and equitable grounds. The judge concluded that the claimant's ignorance of time limits was reasonable given she pursued the respondent's grievance procedure in good faith based on information from gov.uk and ACAS. The respondent's unreasonable 16-month delay in resolving the grievance contributed significantly to the claim being out of time. Once informed of time limits, the claimant acted promptly. The prejudice to the claimant of losing her claims outweighed the prejudice to the respondent of defending an out-of-time claim. The claims will proceed to full hearing.

Practical note

Employers who unreasonably delay internal grievance procedures may face extension of tribunal time limits on just and equitable grounds, particularly where claimants reasonably believed they should exhaust internal procedures first before bringing tribunal claims.

Legal authorities cited

Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust [2021] EWCA Civ 23Kumari v Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust [2022] EAT 132Apelogun-Gabriels v Lambeth LBC [2002] ICR 713Barclays Bank plc v Kapur [1992]Parr v MSR Partners LLP [2022] EWCA Civ 24Keeble v British Coal Corporation [1997] IRLR 336Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2003] ICR 530Southern Cross Healthcare v Owolabi UKEAT/0056/11South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust v King [2020] IRLR 168Eke v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [1981] IRLR 334Robertson v Bexley Community Centre [2003] IRLR 434Southwark LBC v Afolabi [2003] IRLR 220Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University v Morgan [2018] EWCA Civ 640Miller v Ministry of Justice EAT 0003/15Mechkarov v Citibank NA [2016] ICR 1121

Statutes

EQA s.18EQA s.123Limitation Act 1980 s.33(3)EQA s.13

Case details

Case number
1306154/2023
Decision date
12 March 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
financial services
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Operational Manager (seconded)

Claimant representation

Represented
No