Cases2217098/2023

Claimant v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

5 September 2024Before Employment Judge NicolleLondon Centralremote video

Outcome

Partly successful

Individual claims

Direct Discrimination(race)struck out

All claims of direct race discrimination were found to be substantially out of time (predating July 2023) with no continuing course of conduct. The tribunal declined to extend time and found several claims had no reasonable prospect of success, including allegations that being described as 'angry' was a racial stereotype, as these lacked particularisation of how treatment related to race.

Harassment(race)struck out

Save for a meeting on 5 July 2023, all harassment claims were out of time. Even the in-time claim was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success because the claimant failed to particularise how the alleged unwanted conduct related to race, and one allegation involved a black manager allegedly harassing a black employee, undermining the causative link to race.

Direct Discrimination(age)struck out

All age discrimination claims were out of time (some dating to 2020 and May 2021) with no adequate explanation for delay. One claim relating to a meeting on 5 July 2023 was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success because it relied on dual protected characteristics ('older women'), which is not permitted under the Equality Act 2010.

Direct Discrimination(sex)struck out

Claims predating July 2023 were out of time. The in-time claim relating to a 5 July 2023 meeting alleged that the respondent disregarded the claimant's breast clinic investigation, but the tribunal found this could not possibly constitute direct sex discrimination (though might have been arguable as indirect discrimination). The claim had no reasonable prospect of success.

Indirect Discrimination(sex)struck out

The claimant alleged the respondent applied a PCP (generic application of sickness absence policy to medical conditions disproportionately affecting women) but all specific allegations were from 2021 and substantially out of time. The tribunal declined to extend time and also found it unclear whether the allegations related to the pleaded PCP, questioning whether the claim would have a reasonable prospect of success.

Direct Discrimination(disability)partly succeeded

The tribunal allowed claims related to the sickness absence management process commencing 6 December 2021 onwards as part of a continuing course of conduct, but only for PTSD and related mental health conditions (the pleaded disability). Claims predating 6 December 2021 or relating to unpleaded conditions (dyslexia, menopause, hearing impairment, clavicle injury, arthritis) were struck out as out of time or requiring amendment.

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)partly succeeded

The tribunal allowed claims forming part of the continuing course of conduct relating to the sickness absence process from 6 December 2021 onwards, but only for PTSD and related mental health conditions. Claims relating to unpleaded disabilities (clavicle injury, hearing issues, menopause) or predating the sickness absence process were struck out as out of time or having no reasonable prospect of success.

Indirect Discrimination(disability)partly succeeded

Claims relating to the sickness absence meetings from February 2022 onwards and forming part of the continuing process culminating in dismissal were allowed to proceed, but only for PTSD and related mental health conditions. Earlier claims (e.g., Covid hub deployment in April 2020) were out of time. Claims relating to physical conditions or unpleaded disabilities were struck out.

Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments(disability)partly succeeded

The tribunal allowed claims from the sickness absence process onwards (on or after 6 December 2021) relating to PTSD and mental health issues to proceed as part of a continuing course of conduct. Earlier claims and those relating to unpleaded disabilities (clavicle injury, hearing/audibility issues) were struck out as out of time or not pleaded.

Harassment(disability)struck out

All disability-related harassment claims were struck out as either out of time or having no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal applied Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal, noting that one-off, minor or trivial matters should not be regarded as harassment. Examples like completing an occupational health referral without discussion did not meet the threshold for harassment.

Unfair Dismissalnot determined

The tribunal confirmed that the unfair dismissal claim proceeds to a full merits hearing. No determination was made at this preliminary stage, which dealt only with strike-out and time limit issues.

Facts

The claimant, a black woman employed by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, brought multiple discrimination claims spanning several years, alongside an unfair dismissal claim. She suffered from PTSD following the Grenfell fire. The respondent applied to strike out large portions of the claim on time limit grounds and/or lack of reasonable prospects of success. The claims involved allegations of discrimination across multiple protected characteristics (race, age, sex, disability) and various incidents from 2020 onwards, culminating in the claimant's dismissal following a sickness absence management process that commenced in December 2021.

Decision

The tribunal struck out the vast majority of claims as out of time or having no reasonable prospect of success. Only the unfair dismissal claim and disability discrimination claims (direct, arising from disability, indirect, and failure to make reasonable adjustments) relating to the sickness absence process from 6 December 2021 onwards and concerning PTSD/mental health conditions were allowed to proceed. All race, age, sex, and disability harassment claims were struck out. The tribunal declined to extend time on a just and equitable basis for out-of-time claims.

Practical note

At preliminary hearings involving unrepresented claimants with multiple claims spanning several years, tribunals must carefully distinguish between continuing courses of conduct and one-off acts with continuing consequences, and should strike out only claims that are clearly out of time or have no reasonable prospect of success, while permitting arguable claims forming part of a connected process to proceed to a full merits hearing.

Legal authorities cited

Keeble v British Coal Corporation [1997] IRLR 336Southwark London Borough Council v Afolabi [2003] ICR 800Hawkins v Ball [1996] IRLR 258Neary v Governing Body of St Albans Girls' School [2010] ICR 473Mechkarov v Citibank NA [2016] ICR 1121Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union [2001] ICR 391Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal [2009] ICR 724

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.21Equality Act 2010 s.26Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 Rule 37(1)(a)Equality Act 2010 s.123Limitation Act 1980 s.33Equality Act 2010 s.13Equality Act 2010 s.15Equality Act 2010 s.19Equality Act 2010 s.20

Case details

Case number
2217098/2023
Decision date
5 September 2024
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
local government
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Claimant representation

Represented
No