Ms C McGuire v Capgemini UK plc: 2206225/2017
| Judgment Date | 08 January 2019 |
| Citation | 2206225/2017 |
| Published date | 11 January 2019 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Sex Discrimination |
Case Number: 2206225/2017
- 1 -
sb
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant Respondents
Ms C McGuire AND Capgemini UK Plc
Heard at: London Central On: 16-19 October 2018
Before: Employment Judge Glennie
Ms K Church
Mrs E Champion
Representation
For the Claimant: In person
For the Respondent: Ms A Cast, of Counsel
JUDGMENT
The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal is that the complaints of direct
discrimination because of sex and harassment related to sex are
dismissed.
REASONS
1. By her claim to the Tribunal the Claimant, Ms McGuire, made complaints of
unfair dismissal, direct discrimination because of sex, and harassment related to
sex. The Respondent, Capgemini UK Plc, resisted those complaints.
2. The Tribunal is unanimous in the reasons that follow.
The Procedural History
3. In order to explain the issues that the Tribunal has had to decide and the
significance of some parts of the evidence it is necessary to set out the
procedural history of the case in some detail.
Case Number: 2206225/2017
- 2 -
4. There were originally two Respondents to the claim, the second being
Anglian Water Services Limited. At a Preliminary Hearing for Case Management
held on 28 September 2017 Employment Judge Hodgson made orders under
Rule 94 of the Rules of Procedure on the basis that it appeared that such orders
were necessary in the interest of national security. Judge Hodgson made further
orders on 16 November 2017, including in his reasons for those orders the
observation that he was not satisfied that the Claimant’s allegation that her role
with the Respondent had involved significant issues of national security was
sustainable. Following this, on 12 December 2017 Judge Hodgson ruled that the
Rule 94 order would be discharged.
5. A further Preliminary Hearing for Case Management took place on 6
February 2018 before Employment Judge Glennie. On that occasion a public
Preliminary Hearing to determine whether the complaints of unfair dismissal, sex
discrimination and harassment should be struck out or made the subject of
deposit orders was listed. That Preliminary Hearing took place before
Employment Judge Snelson on 11 April 2018. The substantive elements of
Judge Snelson’s judgment were as follows: -
(1) The complaint of unfair dismissal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
(2) All claims against the Respondent under the Equality Act 2010 except for
those based on an alleged incident on 21 February 2017 and the
dismissal on or about 24 April 2017 were presented out of time and were
dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
(3) The claims against Anglian Water Services Limited, the then Second
Respondent, were presented out of time and were dismissed for want of
jurisdiction.
6. On the same occasion Employment Judge Snelson also made an order for
payment of a deposit of £250 in respect of the complaint that the dismissal was
an act of discrimination because of sex.
7. In his reasons for that judgment Employment Judge Snelson identified four
acts from the Claimant’s pleading beyond the dismissal itself as being allegations
of behaviour capable of constituting harassment. These included the allegation
about the incident on 21 February 2017. In paragraph 8 of his reasons Judge
Snelson explained that the effect of his judgment was that there were two
surviving matters to be decided by the Tribunal, namely the complaints under the
Equality Act in relation to the incident of 21 February 2017 and in relation to the
dismissal. The hearing was listed to commence on 16 October 2018 before a full
Tribunal.
8. On 12 October 2018 the case file was placed before Employment Judge
Snelson with a document from the HMCTS Finance Support Centre at Bristol
stating that the Claimant’s deposit had been received on 8 May 2018. The
deposit order had contained the standard provision that the deposit was to be
paid not later than 21 days from the date on which the order was sent, and in the
To continue reading
Request your trial