Cases6001047/2023

Claimant v Bank of Ireland (UK) plc

27 March 2024Before Employment Judge Mr P CadneyBristolremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Direct Discrimination(race)struck out

Claim dismissed as out of time. Tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time because the delay caused significant evidential prejudice to the respondent - all records relating to the recruitment processes had been deleted under GDPR retention policies, and the claimant had no good reason for the delay in bringing her claim.

Direct Discrimination(disability)struck out

Claim dismissed as out of time on same basis as race discrimination claim. The tribunal found the prejudice to the respondent in defending the claims without any documentary evidence outweighed the prejudice to the claimant in not being able to pursue her claims.

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)struck out

Claim relating to disciplinary action for absence dismissed as out of time, applying the same reasoning regarding lack of evidence and absence of good reason for delay.

Harassment(disability)struck out

Harassment claims (relating to manager demanding attendance on sick day and subsequent criticism) dismissed as out of time on the same basis as other claims.

Facts

The claimant, a black woman with schizoaffective disorder, worked for Bank of Ireland from April 2018 to July 2022 in a mortgage services telephony team. She alleged she was the only member of her team who did not receive promotion despite making five job applications between 2019 and 2022, and that she was subjected to disability-related harassment by her manager Melanie Davies in 2019. She resigned in July 2022 after her final unsuccessful application but did not contact ACAS until June 2023, having only learned of its existence from her GP in March 2023.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed all claims as presented out of time, refusing to extend time on just and equitable grounds. The judge held that the significant evidential prejudice to the respondent - all recruitment records had been deleted under GDPR policies and would have existed for at least some applications if the claim had been filed in time - outweighed the prejudice to the claimant, particularly given the absence of a good reason for the 8+ month delay.

Practical note

Even where a claimant has a potentially meritorious discrimination claim, tribunals will not extend time where the delay has caused the respondent to lose documentary evidence through routine data retention policies, particularly where the claimant offers no good reason for failing to bring the claim sooner.

Legal authorities cited

Barnes v Metropolitan Police Commissioner UKEAT/0474/05Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust [2021] EWCA Civ 23Keeble v British Coal Corporation [1997] IRLR 336Robertson v Bexley Community Centre [2003] IRLR 434Jones v Secretary of State for Health and Social CareAbertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan [2018] EWCA Civ 640Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police v Caston [2009] EWCA Civ 1298

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.123Equality Act 2010 s.6Limitation Act 1980 s.33

Case details

Case number
6001047/2023
Decision date
27 March 2024
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
financial services
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Mortgage Service Department Telephony Team Member
Service
4 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No