Mrs M St Joseph v Citywest Homes Services Ltd: 2200116/2019 and 2200609/2019
| Judgment Date | 02 August 2021 |
| Citation | 2200116/2019 and 2200609/2019 |
| Date | 02 August 2021 |
| Published date | 24 March 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Maternity and Pregnancy Rights |
Case Number: 2200116/2019 and 2200609/2019 V
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant Respondent
Mrs Marie-Antionette St Joseph v Citywest Homes Services Limited
Heard at: London Central On: 11 - 19 January 2021
Before: Employment Judge E Burns
Mr David Carter
Mr Paul Secher
Representation
For the Claimant: In person
For the Respondent: Mr S Harding (counsel)
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal is that all of the claimant’s claims fail and
are dismissed.
REASONS
CLAIMS AND ISSUES
1. This is a claim arising from the claimant’s employment with the respondent
as a Housing Services Adviser. Her employment began on 5 March 2018
and continued until her dismissal by the respondent. There is a dispute
between the parties as to the date when the claimant’s employment ended.
2. The claimant presented claim number 2200116/2019 to the tribunal on 10
January 2019. It included a claim for interim relief that was held by the
tribunal to have been presented out of time. Following a period of early
conciliation from 19 to 20 February 2019, she presented claim number
2200609/2019 to the tribunal on 21 February 2019. The claims were
consolidated at a case management hearing on 8 March 2019.
Case Number: 2200116/2019 and 2200609/2019 V
2
3. It is notable that the claimant appealed against the decision to reject her
claim for interim relief to the EAT and then to the Court of Appeal. The
appeals were rejected on the basis that the correct date of termination was
23 November 2018.
4. The claims raise the following causes of action:
• Detriments and dismissal because of a protected disclosure
• Direct discrimination on the grounds of age and marital status
• Harassment on the grounds of age
• Victimisation
• Unpaid wages, holiday pay and notice pay
5. The claimant relies on a “Schedule of Acts of Discrimination” which contains
a large number of separate factual allegations. Most of these were said to
arise under several of the above causes of action. The Schedule is attached
to this judgment. The types of claim being pursued in relation to each factual
allegation are as noted in the Schedule, subject to the fact that harassment
due to marital status is not a cause of action.
6. There are three allegations in the Schedule which we do not need to
determine, following a preliminary hearing on 12 and 13 August 2019:
(i) 13.06.18 allegation.
(ii) 31.08.19 allegation.
(iii) 12.09.18 allegation.
The claimant wishes these to be considered as background factual matters,
however.
7. The issues, agreed at that preliminary hearing, are as follows:
Time limits / limitation issues
(i) Were all of the claimant’s complaints presented within the time limits
set out in sections 123(1)(a) & (b) of the Equality Act 2010 (“EQA”) and
sections 23(2) to (4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”)?
Dealing with this issue may involve consideration of subsidiary issues
including: when the treatment complained about occurred; whether
there was an act and/or conduct extending over a period, and/or a
series of similar acts or failures; whether it was not reasonably
practicable for a complaint to be presented within the primary time limit;
whether time should be extended on a “just and equitable” basis.
(ii) Given the date the second claim form was presented and the dates of
early conciliation, any complaint about something that happened
before 20 November 2018 may potentially be out of time, so that the
tribunal may not have jurisdiction to deal with it. If the claimant’s appeal
is successful, and/or the 10 January 2019 claim form is deemed to
have been accepted, then it will be necessary to decide what effect (if
any) that has on any time limit issues.
Case Number: 2200116/2019 and 2200609/2019 V
3
Remedy for unfair dismissal
(iii) If the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed and the remedy is
compensation:
a. What adjustment, if any, should be made to any compensatory
award to reflect the possibility that the claimant would still have been
fairly dismissed for a different reason? See: Polkey v AE Dayton
Services Ltd [1987] UKHL 8; paragraph 54 of Software 2000 Ltd v
Andrews [2007] ICR 825; [W Devis & Sons Ltd v Atkins [1977] 3 All
ER 40; Crédit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Wardle
[2011] IRLR 604];
b. Would it be just and equitable to reduce the amount of the claimant’s
basic award because of any blameworthy or culpable conduct
before the dismissal, pursuant to ERA section 122(2); and if so to
what extent?
c. Did the claimant, by blameworthy or culpable actions, cause or
contribute to dismissal to any extent; and if so, by what proportion,
if at all, would it be just and equitable to reduce the amount of any
compensatory award, pursuant to ERA section 123(6)?
Public interest disclosure (PID)
(iv) Did the claimant make one or more protected disclosures (Part
IVA ERA). The claimant relies on a claim form submitted to the
employment tribunal circa 26 January 2018 (2200265/2018)
against a previous employer. The claimant alleges that her
disclosure was of financial fraud and financial malpractice at that
previous employer.
(v) The respondent defends the claim on the following basis in
particular:
a. It makes no admissions that the 26 January 2018
(2200265/2018) claim form was a protected disclosure.
b. It makes no admission of knowledge of the protected
disclosure (if any)
c. It denies that it dismissed the Claimant because of any
protected disclosure, or anything connected to the 26
January 2018 (2200265/2018) claim form, and asserts it
dismissed her for conduct.
(vi) What was the principal reason the claimant was dismissed and
was it that s/he had made a protected disclosure?
(vii) Did the respondent subject the claimant to any detriments, as set
out in the Claimant’s Schedule? Included within this issue are the
questions of what happened as a matter of fact and whether what
happened was a detriment to the claimant as a matter of law.
To continue reading
Request your trial