Claimant v STEM Learning Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal found no reasonable prospects of success. Claimant failed to show anything beyond difference in treatment and difference in protected characteristic. No evidence provided to suggest connection between race and alleged less favourable treatment (removal of PDL status, removal from PDL forum, obscure job offer in Sept 2022). Respondent likely to show treatment unconnected with race - claimant had misused forum for matters unrelated to PDL process.
Tribunal found no reasonable prospects of success. Claimant failed to establish anything beyond difference in treatment and protected characteristic. No evidence linking sex to alleged detriments. Respondent provided emails showing claimant misused STEM forum for representations about other tribunal proceedings, providing non-discriminatory explanation for treatment.
Tribunal found no reasonable prospects of success. Alleged protected act (complaint to Mandy Honeyman in October 2022 about Wolfram alpha course containing historical inaccuracies about colonisation) did not meet requirements of s.27(2) Equality Act 2010. Complaint was about poor quality of course rather than specific complaint under the Act, despite some concerns being related to perceived racist approach.
Facts
Claimant alleged race and sex discrimination based on three detriments: removal of her PDL status on 18 January 2024, removal from respondent's PDL forum on same date, and an allegedly obscure job offer in September 2022. The alleged discriminatory acts occurred on 18 January 2024. Claimant started early conciliation on 6 April 2024 (within time) which ended 14 May 2024, but submitted claim on 21 June 2024, one week late after sending blank form on the deadline. Respondent provided evidence that claimant had misused the STEM forum for matters unconnected with PDL process, including representations about other tribunal proceedings. Claimant had some experience of bringing tribunal claims but failed to comply with tribunal orders to provide witness statement and documents on time limit issues.
Decision
Tribunal struck out all claims on two grounds: (1) claims were out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time as claimant provided no good reason for delay and claims had poor prospects of success; (2) claims had no reasonable prospects of success as claimant failed to establish any connection between protected characteristics and alleged less favourable treatment, and respondent provided non-discriminatory explanation that claimant had misused forum for improper purposes. Alleged protected act for victimisation claim did not meet statutory requirements.
Practical note
A claimant must provide evidence of more than just differential treatment and a difference in protected characteristic to establish discrimination; the tribunal will strictly apply time limits where no good reason for delay is provided and the underlying claim lacks merit.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1805794/2024
- Decision date
- 10 January 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No