Claimant v London Fire Brigade
Outcome
Individual claims
Allegations of direct sex discrimination from 2009-2010 onwards, including provision of unsuitable uniform, harassment, undermining of authority. Respondent sought strike out on time limit grounds but tribunal held this should be determined at final hearing.
Serious allegations of sexual harassment including inappropriate touching attempt in 2009, filming in showers in 2010, crude sexual comments, and ongoing harassment. Time limit dispute to be resolved at final hearing.
Allegations that claimant was repeatedly questioned about a female colleague's sexual orientation and it was suggested they were in a relationship. Matter proceeding to final hearing.
Claim that after reporting filming incident in 2010, claimant was seen as troublemaker and ostracized. Protected act relied upon includes objection to 'CCTV in operation' poster in women's facilities. Proceeding to final hearing.
Claims of protected disclosure detriment relating to complaints raised about harassment and unsuitable accommodation. Matter proceeding to final hearing.
Claimant resigned on 7 June 2024 following long history of alleged harassment and discrimination. Unfair dismissal claim proceeding to final hearing.
Facts
Female firefighter alleged serious sexual harassment from 2009 onwards, including attempted sexual assault, filming in showers, and ongoing harassment and discrimination throughout her career with London Fire and Rescue Service. Most serious allegations dated from 2009-2010, with further allegations from 2020-2024. Claimant resigned in June 2024. She brought two claims and sought to consolidate them, withdrawing some allegations to focus on most serious matters.
Decision
Tribunal refused respondent's application to strike out 2009-2010 allegations on time limit grounds. Held that claimant's partial withdrawal of allegations was not sufficiently clear to prevent her relying on withdrawn matters to establish conduct extending over a period. Time limit issue and whether there was a continuing act to be determined at final hearing. Extensive fact-finding required, making strike out inappropriate.
Practical note
When a claimant narrows their claim for proportionality, tribunals will not readily infer they have abandoned reliance on withdrawn allegations for proving a continuing act unless the withdrawal is entirely clear and unambiguous on that specific point.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2201952/2024
- Decision date
- 10 March 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- emergency services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Firefighter / Fire Investigation Officer
- Service
- 17 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister