TRY ME!
Employment Tribunal Time Limits
Summary
Employment tribunal claims must be filed within three months of the last discriminatory act, with possible extensions for early conciliation. Continuous discrimination by the same person can be treated as a single act, affecting time limits. Key cases include Robertson v Bexley Community Centre, emphasizing just and equitable extensions, and Hendricks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, which addresses continuous acts. Victimisation occurs when adverse treatment follows a discrimination complaint, as seen in St Helens Borough Council v Derbyshire. Direct race discrimination cases like Nagarajan v London Regional Transport highlight the burden of proof. Audio recordings and transcripts can strengthen claims.Full Conversation
yes
Here are more specific details about the mentioned cases:
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre: This case highlights the Tribunal's discretion to extend time limits if it is "just and equitable" to do so.
- South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust v King: This case emphasizes the importance of filing claims promptly and the consequences of delays.
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis: This case deals with situations where conduct extending over a period can impact the time limits for filing claims.
Would you like to know how these principles apply to your situation?
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre: This case highlights the Tribunal's discretion to extend time limits if it is "just and equitable" to do so.
- South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust v King: This case emphasizes the importance of filing claims promptly and the consequences of delays.
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis: This case deals with situations where conduct extending over a period can impact the time limits for filing claims.
Would you like to know how these principles apply to your situation?
yes
Given the context, here are the principles from these cases:
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre: Tribunal may extend time limits if it's "just and equitable."
- South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust v King: Importance of prompt claims.
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis: Conduct over a period can affect time limits.
Can you provide more details about your employment situation and any relevant dates?
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre: Tribunal may extend time limits if it's "just and equitable."
- South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust v King: Importance of prompt claims.
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis: Conduct over a period can affect time limits.
Can you provide more details about your employment situation and any relevant dates?
first discrimination on March * the last race discrimination was 21st September * . resigned on 22nd October * . acas certificate issued on 18th December
The key issue here is whether your claim falls within the time limits specified by the Tribunal. Here are the relevant points:
- Claims must be made within three months of the last act of discrimination.
- The time limit can be extended by the period of early conciliation, which is usually up to one month.
Given your last act of discrimination was on 21st September * and the ACAS certificate was issued on 18th December *, it's crucial to file your claim promptly. You may still be within the permissible time limit considering the early conciliation extension.
Would you like assistance with the specifics of filing your claim?
- Claims must be made within three months of the last act of discrimination.
- The time limit can be extended by the period of early conciliation, which is usually up to one month.
Given your last act of discrimination was on 21st September * and the ACAS certificate was issued on 18th December *, it's crucial to file your claim promptly. You may still be within the permissible time limit considering the early conciliation extension.
Would you like assistance with the specifics of filing your claim?
filed claim on 18th December *
You appear to have filed your claim within the allowable time frame. Here are the key points:
- Last act of discrimination: 21st September *
- Resignation: 22nd October *
- ACAS certificate issued: 18th December *
- Claim filed: 18th December *
Given the early conciliation extension, your claim seems timely. Would you like any further assistance with your case?
- Last act of discrimination: 21st September *
- Resignation: 22nd October *
- ACAS certificate issued: 18th December *
- Claim filed: 18th December *
Given the early conciliation extension, your claim seems timely. Would you like any further assistance with your case?
case law on the earlier discrimination in March *
For earlier discrimination in March *, the Tribunal considers whether there was a continuous act of discrimination. Here are some relevant points:
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis: Continuous acts can affect time limits.
- Roberts v West Coast Trains Ltd: Demonstrates how ongoing discrimination impacts claims.
Would you like more details on these cases or other assistance?
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis: Continuous acts can affect time limits.
- Roberts v West Coast Trains Ltd: Demonstrates how ongoing discrimination impacts claims.
Would you like more details on these cases or other assistance?
I was discriminated by the same person throughout the ten months
To support your case regarding continuous discrimination, consider the following:
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis: Demonstrates how ongoing discriminatory conduct can be considered a continuous act, affecting the time limits for filing a claim.
- Roberts v West Coast Trains Ltd: Shows how ongoing discrimination impacts the filing period.
Would you like more detailed information on these cases or assistance with another aspect of your claim?
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis: Demonstrates how ongoing discriminatory conduct can be considered a continuous act, affecting the time limits for filing a claim.
- Roberts v West Coast Trains Ltd: Shows how ongoing discrimination impacts the filing period.
Would you like more detailed information on these cases or assistance with another aspect of your claim?
what is the case law that supports my case where I was discriminated by the same person throughout the ten months. Does this not make it one continuous act
Yes, ongoing discrimination by the same person can be considered a continuous act. Here are relevant case laws:
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis: This case supports the notion that continuous discriminatory acts by the same person can be treated as one ongoing act, affecting time limits.
- Roberts v West Coast Trains Ltd: Demonstrates how ongoing discrimination impacts the filing period.
Would you like more information on how to present your case based on these principles?
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis: This case supports the notion that continuous discriminatory acts by the same person can be treated as one ongoing act, affecting time limits.
- Roberts v West Coast Trains Ltd: Demonstrates how ongoing discrimination impacts the filing period.
Would you like more information on how to present your case based on these principles?
how does the continuous act in Hendricks affect my time limits
The principle from *Hendricks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis* means that if discriminatory acts are part of a continuous pattern by the same person, the time limit to file a claim can be extended to three months from the last act of discrimination. This makes your claim timely if filed within that period.
Would you like more guidance on presenting your case?
Would you like more guidance on presenting your case?
after my complaint in May/June * the manager began to block my progress into management
It sounds like you have a potentially strong case for continuous discrimination. Here are the key points to consider:
- Continuous discriminatory acts by the same person can be treated as a single ongoing act.
- The time limit to file a claim is three months from the last act of discrimination.
Would you like assistance on how to gather evidence or present your case?
- Continuous discriminatory acts by the same person can be treated as a single ongoing act.
- The time limit to file a claim is three months from the last act of discrimination.
Would you like assistance on how to gather evidence or present your case?
would victimisation come in after I complained about my manager in May/June *
Victimisation can indeed come into play if you faced adverse treatment after complaining about your manager. Relevant points:
- Victimisation occurs when you are treated unfairly because you made a complaint about discrimination.
- This treatment must be linked to your complaint to be considered victimisation.
Would you like guidance on gathering evidence for victimisation?
- Victimisation occurs when you are treated unfairly because you made a complaint about discrimination.
- This treatment must be linked to your complaint to be considered victimisation.
Would you like guidance on gathering evidence for victimisation?
it is already submitted as part of my case]
It sounds like you have a strong case with multiple elements to support your claim. Here are some key points:
- Continuous Discrimination: Ongoing discriminatory acts by the same person can be treated as a single act, extending the time limit.
- Victimisation: Unfair treatment after making a complaint can also strengthen your claim.
Would you need tips on gathering more evidence or presenting your case effectively?
- Continuous Discrimination: Ongoing discriminatory acts by the same person can be treated as a single act, extending the time limit.
- Victimisation: Unfair treatment after making a complaint can also strengthen your claim.
Would you need tips on gathering more evidence or presenting your case effectively?
CAN YOU GIVE ME SOME AUTHORITIES ON DIRECT RACE DISCRINATION CASES
Here are some key authorities on direct race discrimination cases in England:
- R (E) v Governing Body of JFS: This case examines direct race discrimination in school admissions.
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport: Discusses direct discrimination and the burden of proof.
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary: Highlights the definition and proof of direct discrimination.
Do you need more details on any of these cases?
- R (E) v Governing Body of JFS: This case examines direct race discrimination in school admissions.
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport: Discusses direct discrimination and the burden of proof.
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary: Highlights the definition and proof of direct discrimination.
Do you need more details on any of these cases?
I was called by employer a thief and drug dealer on two separate occasions . The employer knew that I was Albanian and current media puts Albanians in a poor light
Being called a thief and drug dealer, especially with the knowledge of your Albanian background, can be considered direct race discrimination. Here are some relevant points:
- Direct Race Discrimination: Unfavorable treatment based on race or ethnic origin.
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport: Discusses direct discrimination and the burden of proof.
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary: Highlights the definition and proof of direct discrimination.
Would you like guidance on how to gather evidence or present this aspect of your case?
- Direct Race Discrimination: Unfavorable treatment based on race or ethnic origin.
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport: Discusses direct discrimination and the burden of proof.
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary: Highlights the definition and proof of direct discrimination.
Would you like guidance on how to gather evidence or present this aspect of your case?
yes
To strengthen your case on direct race discrimination, consider the following:
- Gather Evidence:
- Document any instances where you were called derogatory names.
- Collect any witness statements.
- Keep records of any communications that highlight discriminatory behavior.
- Presenting Your Case:
- Highlight how the derogatory remarks were tied to your Albanian background.
- Use the cases of *Nagarajan v London Regional Transport* and *Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary* to demonstrate direct discrimination.
Would you like more specific information on how to present these cases in your tribunal?
- Gather Evidence:
- Document any instances where you were called derogatory names.
- Collect any witness statements.
- Keep records of any communications that highlight discriminatory behavior.
- Presenting Your Case:
- Highlight how the derogatory remarks were tied to your Albanian background.
- Use the cases of *Nagarajan v London Regional Transport* and *Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary* to demonstrate direct discrimination.
Would you like more specific information on how to present these cases in your tribunal?
I have covert transcripts of admissions by the employer
Having covert transcripts of admissions by your employer can significantly strengthen your case. Here are some tips for presenting this evidence:
- Ensure the transcripts are clear and accurately reflect the conversations.
- Highlight key admissions where the employer acknowledges discriminatory behavior.
- Connect these admissions to instances of direct race discrimination and victimisation.
Would you like further assistance on how to effectively present this evidence in your tribunal?
- Ensure the transcripts are clear and accurately reflect the conversations.
- Highlight key admissions where the employer acknowledges discriminatory behavior.
- Connect these admissions to instances of direct race discrimination and victimisation.
Would you like further assistance on how to effectively present this evidence in your tribunal?
I have audio recordings of employer admitting to me that I was called a thief and drug delaer
It sounds like you have strong evidence to support your claim. Here are some steps you can take:
- Transcripts and Recordings: Ensure your audio recordings are clear and transcriptions are accurate.
- Witness Statements: Gather statements from anyone who witnessed or overheard the discriminatory remarks.
- Documentation: Keep all relevant documents and communications that support your claim.
Would you like more information on how to present this evidence effectively at your tribunal?
- Transcripts and Recordings: Ensure your audio recordings are clear and transcriptions are accurate.
- Witness Statements: Gather statements from anyone who witnessed or overheard the discriminatory remarks.
- Documentation: Keep all relevant documents and communications that support your claim.
Would you like more information on how to present this evidence effectively at your tribunal?
as result the employer prevented my promotion to an assistant manager . Do you have authorities on victimisation
Here are some key authorities on victimisation in England:
- St Helens Borough Council v Derbyshire: This case demonstrates that victimisation occurs when an employee is treated unfairly because they made a complaint about discrimination.
- Aziz v Trinity Street Taxis Ltd: Highlights how adverse treatment after a discrimination complaint can be considered victimisation.
Would you like guidance on how to gather additional evidence or present your case effectively?
- St Helens Borough Council v Derbyshire: This case demonstrates that victimisation occurs when an employee is treated unfairly because they made a complaint about discrimination.
- Aziz v Trinity Street Taxis Ltd: Highlights how adverse treatment after a discrimination complaint can be considered victimisation.
Would you like guidance on how to gather additional evidence or present your case effectively?
do you have any other authorities ]
Here are additional key authorities on victimisation in England:
- Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan: This case illustrates that victimisation can occur if an employee is subjected to detriment for bringing a discrimination complaint.
- Woodhouse v West North West Homes Leeds Ltd: Demonstrates that making multiple discrimination complaints does not justify unfair treatment by the employer.
Would you like more details on these cases or further assistance with another aspect of your claim?
- Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan: This case illustrates that victimisation can occur if an employee is subjected to detriment for bringing a discrimination complaint.
- Woodhouse v West North West Homes Leeds Ltd: Demonstrates that making multiple discrimination complaints does not justify unfair treatment by the employer.
Would you like more details on these cases or further assistance with another aspect of your claim?
yes
Here are some additional authorities on victimisation:
- Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan: This case explores the definition of victimisation and the burden of proof.
- Woodhouse v West North West Homes Leeds Ltd: Highlights how an employer's adverse actions following a discrimination complaint can constitute victimisation.
Would you like guidance on how to incorporate these cases into your argument?
- Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan: This case explores the definition of victimisation and the burden of proof.
- Woodhouse v West North West Homes Leeds Ltd: Highlights how an employer's adverse actions following a discrimination complaint can constitute victimisation.
Would you like guidance on how to incorporate these cases into your argument?
yes
To incorporate these cases into your argument effectively:
- Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan: Highlight how the employer's actions after your complaint fit the definition of victimisation.
- Woodhouse v West North West Homes Leeds Ltd: Use this case to demonstrate how the employer's adverse actions post-complaint constitute victimisation.
Would you like more tips on presenting these cases at your tribunal?
- Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan: Highlight how the employer's actions after your complaint fit the definition of victimisation.
- Woodhouse v West North West Homes Leeds Ltd: Use this case to demonstrate how the employer's adverse actions post-complaint constitute victimisation.
Would you like more tips on presenting these cases at your tribunal?
yes
To present these cases effectively at your tribunal:
- Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan:
- Illustrate how the employer's actions after your complaint align with the definition of victimisation.
- Point out how these actions were a direct consequence of your discrimination complaint.
- Woodhouse v West North West Homes Leeds Ltd:
- Use this case to show that the employer's adverse actions following your complaint are clear examples of victimisation.
- Highlight any patterns of adverse treatment that occurred after your complaint.
Would you like specific examples of how to structure your arguments based on these cases?
- Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan:
- Illustrate how the employer's actions after your complaint align with the definition of victimisation.
- Point out how these actions were a direct consequence of your discrimination complaint.
- Woodhouse v West North West Homes Leeds Ltd:
- Use this case to show that the employer's adverse actions following your complaint are clear examples of victimisation.
- Highlight any patterns of adverse treatment that occurred after your complaint.
Would you like specific examples of how to structure your arguments based on these cases?
yes
To structure your arguments based on these cases:
- Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan:
- Introduction: Briefly introduce the case and its relevance.
- Application: Explain how your employer's actions align with the definition of victimisation as established in Khan.
- Evidence: Present your evidence (transcripts, recordings) to show the direct consequence of your discrimination complaint.
- Woodhouse v West North West Homes Leeds Ltd:
- Introduction: Summarize the case and its importance.
- Application: Demonstrate how the employer's adverse actions post-complaint fit the pattern of victimisation outlined in Woodhouse.
- Evidence: Highlight instances of adverse treatment and connect them to your complaint.
Would you like more detailed examples for each part?
- Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan:
- Introduction: Briefly introduce the case and its relevance.
- Application: Explain how your employer's actions align with the definition of victimisation as established in Khan.
- Evidence: Present your evidence (transcripts, recordings) to show the direct consequence of your discrimination complaint.
- Woodhouse v West North West Homes Leeds Ltd:
- Introduction: Summarize the case and its importance.
- Application: Demonstrate how the employer's adverse actions post-complaint fit the pattern of victimisation outlined in Woodhouse.
- Evidence: Highlight instances of adverse treatment and connect them to your complaint.
Would you like more detailed examples for each part?
yes
To structure your arguments effectively, here's a detailed example for each part:
Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan
- Introduction:
- "In *Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan*, the court defined victimisation as unfavorable treatment following a discrimination complaint."
- Application:
- "My employer's actions after my complaint demonstrate victimisation. Following my complaint in May/June *, my progression was blocked, which aligns with the definition in Khan."
- Evidence:
- "I have audio recordings and transcripts where my employer admits to calling me derogatory names. This treatment followed my discrimination complaint, clearly showing victimisation."
- Introduction:
- "In *Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan*, the court defined victimisation as unfavorable treatment following a discrimination complaint."
- Application:
- "My employer's actions after my complaint demonstrate victimisation. Following my complaint in May/June *, my progression was blocked, which aligns with the definition in Khan."
- Evidence:
- "I have audio recordings and transcripts where my employer admits to calling me derogatory names. This treatment followed my discrimination complaint, clearly showing victimisation."
Woodhouse v West North West Homes Leeds Ltd
- Introduction:
- "*Woodhouse v West North West Homes Leeds Ltd* highlights how post-complaint adverse actions by an employer constitute victimisation."
- Application:
- "Post-complaint, my employer's actions, such as preventing my promotion, fit the victimisation pattern described in the Woodhouse case."
- Evidence:
- "Here are instances where my progress was deliberately blocked after my complaint, supported by witness statements and documented communications."
Would you likeadditional help with specific examples or any other aspect of your case?
- Introduction:
- "*Woodhouse v West North West Homes Leeds Ltd* highlights how post-complaint adverse actions by an employer constitute victimisation."
- Application:
- "Post-complaint, my employer's actions, such as preventing my promotion, fit the victimisation pattern described in the Woodhouse case."
- Evidence:
- "Here are instances where my progress was deliberately blocked after my complaint, supported by witness statements and documented communications."
Would you likeadditional help with specific examples or any other aspect of your case?
no
It seems like you have a well-documented case with strong evidence of continuous discrimination and victimisation. Given the clarity of your claims and the supporting evidence, you have a potentially strong case. Best of luck with your tribunal, and feel free to reach out if you need further assistance in the future.
can you go ve me cases where direct race discrimination claim succedeeded
Here are some key cases where direct race discrimination claims succeeded in England:
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport: Demonstrated direct race discrimination and the burden of proof required.
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary: Defined direct discrimination and the necessary evidence.
- R (E) v Governing Body of JFS: Examined direct race discrimination in school admissions.
Would you like more detailed information on one of these cases?
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport: Demonstrated direct race discrimination and the burden of proof required.
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary: Defined direct discrimination and the necessary evidence.
- R (E) v Governing Body of JFS: Examined direct race discrimination in school admissions.
Would you like more detailed information on one of these cases?
Start a new chat