Claimant v Charles Lyndon Ltd

The claimant withdrew her unfair constructive dismissal claim at the preliminary hearing. The claim was dismissed on withdrawal under Rule 52. In any event, the claimant lacked the two-year qualifying period necessary to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim.

The tribunal struck out the constructive dismissal claim under Rule 37 as having no prospect of success because it was not presented in time (over 6 months late) and it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented it in time given her legal knowledge and lack of incapacity.

The claim concerned unfair allocation of work in a stereotypical manner and performance review assessment. Struck out under Rule 37 for being presented substantially out of time (over 6 months late). Tribunal not satisfied it was just and equitable to extend time given claimant's legal knowledge, awareness of time limits, lack of medical evidence of incapacity, and no reasonable explanation for delay.

The claim related to sexualised comments allegedly made by work colleagues orally and on social media. Struck out under Rule 37 for being presented substantially out of time. Tribunal found claimant was legally qualified, knew her rights, was able to document other matters during the relevant period, and provided no satisfactory explanation for not presenting her claim within the 3-month limit.

Claim related to alleged autism spectrum disorder and mishandling of performance review and work allocation. Struck out for being out of time. Tribunal noted there was no medical evidence the claimant actually had ASD (self-diagnosed following research), and claimant did not link any disability to her failure to present the claim in time.

Part of disability discrimination claims under ss.13, 15, 19, 20-21 and 26 of EqA 2010. Struck out for being presented substantially out of time in circumstances where tribunal not satisfied it was just and equitable to extend time.

Claim concerned requirement to work in office on Fridays when claimant requested to work from home due to alleged ASD. Struck out for being out of time. Tribunal found no medical evidence of ASD and no link established between any impairment and the delay in presenting the claim.