Claimant v Durham County Council
Outcome
Individual claims
This was a preliminary hearing on time limits only. The tribunal determined it had jurisdiction to hear the claim. The substantive merits have not yet been determined and will proceed to a full hearing.
This was a preliminary hearing on time limits only. The tribunal determined it had jurisdiction to hear the claim. The substantive merits have not yet been determined and will proceed to a full hearing.
This was a preliminary hearing on time limits only. The tribunal determined it had jurisdiction to hear the claim. The substantive merits have not yet been determined and will proceed to a full hearing.
This was a preliminary hearing on time limits only. The tribunal determined it had jurisdiction to hear the claim. The substantive merits have not yet been determined and will proceed to a full hearing.
This was a preliminary hearing on time limits only. The tribunal determined it had jurisdiction to hear the claim. The substantive merits have not yet been determined and will proceed to a full hearing.
This was a preliminary hearing on time limits only. The tribunal determined it had jurisdiction to hear the claim. The substantive merits have not yet been determined and will proceed to a full hearing.
Facts
Claimant was employed as a Family Support Worker from 27 March 2023 and resigned on 19 April 2023, less than one month into the role. She was subject to informal meetings regarding Facebook posts she had made before her employment began, which the respondent believed supported an individual involved in care proceedings against the Council. The claimant raised a grievance on 29 March 2023, citing discrimination trauma. She contacted ACAS on 6 April 2023 but did not present her claim until 5 September 2023, approximately 3 weeks out of time. She suffered stress, anxiety, and health problems, had minimal union support, and feared that bringing tribunal proceedings would harm her employment prospects.
Decision
The tribunal determined that it would be just and equitable to extend time for the claimant to bring her claims of sex, race, and religion or belief discrimination and harassment. The judge found the delay relatively short (3 weeks), that the claimant acted promptly once her mental health improved, that she had received poor union support, and that there was no significant prejudice to the respondent. The claims will proceed to a full hearing.
Practical note
A tribunal may extend time under the just and equitable test even where a claimant knew of time limits, if the delay is short and explained by genuine health concerns, lack of support, and fear of employment consequences, particularly where there is no significant prejudice to the respondent.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2502061/2023
- Decision date
- 6 March 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Family Support Worker
- Service
- 1 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No