EAT The ET dismissed as premature the Claimant”s application for disability discrimination because the application was made less than 28 days after the Claimant”s grievance had been raised in a letter dated 21st April 2005. In fact there was an earlier letter that constituted a written grievance that was before the ET but its significance was overlooked. In the circumstances the Claimant was not precluded from arguing on appeal that the earlier letter constituted such a written grievance for the purposes of S32 and paragraphs 6 or 9 of Schedule 2 of the Employment Act 2002.
2. The ET had failed to have regard to the guidance set out in Hendricks v Commissioner of Police [2003] IRLR 96 as to the meaning of ”an act extending over a period ” set out in paragraph 3, Schedule 1 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and had taken too restrictive a view of the matter.
The decision in Hendricks v Commissioner of Police is to be preferred to that in Robertson v Bexley Community Centre in relation to the meaning of ”an act extending over a period”. Hendricks v Commissioner of Police was not cited in the latter case.
In cases where there is an issue as to whether an ET has jurisdiction to determine all or part of a claim because ”an act extending over a period” is said to be a series of acts some or all of which occurred outside the 3 month limitation period, the Claimant must show a good arguable case or a prima facie case that the matters complained of did constitute such an act.
Judges:
His Honour Judge Serota QC
Citations:
[2006] UKEAT 0251 – 06 – 2609, UKEAT/0251/06
Links:
Statutes:
Citing:
Cited – Shergold v Fieldway Medical Centre EAT 5-Dec-2005
The claimant had submitted a grievance complaining in general terms of the way in which she had been treated by a manager. She did not, however, refer to a particular incident relied on in her pleading as one of the two ‘last straw’ incidents that . .
Cited by:
Cited – Novak v Phones 4U Ltd EAT 14-Sep-2012
EAT Race Discrimination : Continuing Act – The Claimant complained of entries made on Facebook by work colleagues, said to be acts of discrimination on the grounds of disability and nationality. He was found to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.245128