Ms M Gromek v Moto Hospitality Ltd: 3200924/2019
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 April 2022 |
| Date | 25 April 2022 |
| Published date | 30 June 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
| Citation | 3200924/2019 |
Case Number: 3200924/2019
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Ms M. Gromek
Respondent: Moto Hospitality Limited
Heard at: East London Hearing Centre
On: 26-28 May 2021, 18 January 2022; and
19 January 2022 (in chambers)
Before: Employment Judge Massarella
Mr D. Ross
Mr J. Webb
Representation
Claimant: In person
Respondent: Mr D. Northall (Counsel)
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Tribunal is that: -
1. the claims of direct disability discrimination, discrimination because of
something arising in consequence of disability and harassment related
to disability in relation to Issues 2(a) to (f) were presented out of time;
it is not just and equitable to extend time; the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction
in relation to these claims and they are dismissed;
2. had the Tribunal accepted jurisdiction in relation to those claims, it
would have concluded that they were not well-founded;
3. the claims of disability discrimination in relation to issues 2(g) to (i) are
not well-founded and are dismissed;
4. the Claimant was not constructively dismissed.
Case Number: 3200924/2019
2
REASONS
This has been a remote hearing (CVP), which has not been objected to by the parties.
A face-to-face hearing was not held because of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The hearing
1. We had a main bundle of 373 pages and a supplementary bundle of 52 pages.
We told the parties at the beginning of the hearing that we would not consider
documents which we were not taken to in cross-examination or closing
submissions.
2. A timetable was agreed at the outset; remedy would be dealt with separately, if
the Claimant succeeded her claims. It had been suggested in correspondence
that the Claimant might seek an order for anonymisation of the judgment but, in
view of the assurances given to her by the Respondent that it would not be
inviting unnecessary observers to attend the hearing, she did not pursue the
application. The Tribunal spent some time at the beginning of the hearing
explaining to the Claimant how the hearing would be conducted. She confirmed
that she had prepared questions for the Respondent’s witnesses and had a list
of page references.
3. The list of issues was clarified, particularly the dates on which the alleged acts
of discrimination were said to have occurred (although the Claimant was unable
to provide dates for some of them); the Respondent clarified its legitimate aims
in the discrimination arising from disability claims.
4. The Tribunal read for most of the morning of the first day. Unfortunately, at the
end of the morning the Tribunal discovered that, because of a listing clash, it
could not sit on the third day. We indicated that we would continue with the
hearing, achieve what we could on the first and second days, and relist a third
day as soon as possible. Both parties agreed with the approach, and the
Claimant began her evidence in the afternoon. Her evidence was not completed
by the end of the day.
5. On the morning of the second day, the Tribunal received an email from the
Claimant, applying to postpone the hearing; the Respondent objected to a
postponement. The Claimant’s ground for the application was that it would be
better to adjourn to dates on which all the evidence could be heard on
consecutive days.
6. The Tribunal asked the Claimant if she wished to pursue that application at the
hearing, and she said that she did. We heard some brief additional submissions
from her and from Mr Northall (Counsel for the Respondent). The application
was refused for the following reasons.
7. Firstly, the Claimant was in the middle of her evidence and it would be
inappropriate to stop at that point; she would not be able to speak to anybody
about her case until the case resumed. We disagreed that the questioning of
the Claimant up to that point had not been directed at the list of issues. We were
satisfied that Mr Northall’s cross-examination had been relevant. He told us that
To continue reading
Request your trial