24 June 2020 #Employment
The EAT, in J Pranczk v Hampshire County Council, had to recently decide whether a Tribunal should have identified, direct and indirect disability and victimisation claims from a claim form when detrimental treatment was alleged.
The Claimant brought claims of unpaid wages and holiday pay. Her claim form referenced unfavourable treatment associated with long term sickness absence. There was no reference to her having a disability. The Claimant did not attend the final hearing, in any event the Tribunal was satisfied that she was paid her wages and the claim was dismissed. The Claimant appealed the decision and argued that when she referenced detrimental treatment in her claim form, the Tribunal should have identified that she was also bringing claims of direct and indirect disability discrimination and victimisation.
The EAT dismissed the Claimant’s claim that the Tribunal should have identified the additional claims. There was reference to detrimental treatment related to sickness absences but there was nothing on the claim which stated she had a disability, was claiming to have a disability and that the sickness absence was because of a disability. There was nothing referencing victimisation either. This decision clarifies that the Tribunal will only do so much to assist parties in presenting their cases. It is important that legal advice is taken from the outset.