Mr P Hedger and Miss K Dimitrova v John Lewis plc: 1300344/2024 and Others
JUDGMENT
The claimant’s application for reconsideration is refused.REASONS
Conclusions
[1]This decision has been made without a hearing, in accordance with rule 72(1).[2]The application is refused because I [Employment Judge Camp] consider that there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked.[3]By way of background, I refer to the Judgment, with Reasons, striking out the Claimants’ claim of marriage / civil partnership discrimination, sent to the parties on 21 October 2024, which I shall refer to as the “Judgment”. The Claimants applied for reconsideration of that decision in an undated “Reconsideration Request Letter” sent under cover of an email of 31 October 2024, which I shall refer to as the “Application”.[4]In short, the Application makes it, if anything, even clearer than it previously was that the basis of the marriage / civil partnership discrimination claim is an allegation that the Claimants were less favourably treated than they would have been had they been married, something they label “positive discrimination”, e.g. (quoting from the Application): “It is obvious that regardless of the law, being asked if you are married is Marriage or Civil Partnership Discrimination. …. As both Mr Hedger and Miss Dimitrova do not have the status of Marriage or Civil Partnership, this influenced the appeal officer to not uphold their appeal. … Mr Hedger and Miss Dimitrova were treated less favourably because of their relationship and association with each other … [including] an incident in the Appeal Hearing where Mr Hedger was asked if Miss Dimitrova is his wife. This was detailed as positive discrimination by being treated less favourably because they do not have the protected characteristic of Marriage or Civil Partnership. … The first proper open question to M[r] Hedger was asking him if Miss Dimitrova is his Wife. This was asked because she was assessing if they are legally protected from discrimination on grounds of Marriage or Civil Partnership. … This is positive discrimination, treated less favourably than someone who has a protected characteristic. … It appears that the legal test for Positive Discrimination is: Would Mr Hedger & Miss 1 of 2 Case Nos: 1300344, 1300345, 1300346 & 1300347 / 2024 Dimitrova be treated more favourably if they had the legal status of being Married or in a Civil Partnership. It looks, based on what has been mentioned so far, that they would have a significantly greater chance for their appeal to be upheld if they had this protected characteristic….”.[5]As I stated in the Reasons for the Judgment: “it is not illegal to discriminate against a person because they are not married or not in a civil partnership.” Calling discrimination of that kind “positive discrimination”, as the Claimants do, does not alter that fact.[6]In the above circumstances, I remain firmly of the view that this claim has no reasonable prospects of success and that there is no good reason why the Claimants should be allowed to spend everyone’s time and resources on a claim which would inevitably fail. There is no reasonable prospect of me being persuaded otherwise.[1]Mr Hedger’s claims for discrimination on the grounds of race and harassment on the grounds of race are struck out on the basis that they have no reasonable prospect of success.[2]Ms Dimitrova’s claims for unfair dismissal, discrimination on the grounds of race and harassment on the grounds of race are struck out on the basis that they have no reasonable prospect of success.[3]The claimants’ applications to amend their claims to include a claim for discrimination on the grounds of sex and/or sexual orientation is refused.[4]The claimants’ remaining claim for the right to be accompanied will proceed to a final hearing.[1]Case management orders made at a preliminary hearing on 6 September 2024 included a proposal to strike out most of the claimants’ claims on the grounds that they appeared to have no reasonable prospects of success.[2]Before the preliminary hearing, both claimants had been permitted to amend their claim forms to add complaints that their dismissals were direct marriage / civil partnership discrimination. The proposal to strike out covered those complaints.[3]The claimants wrote on 6 October 2024 responding to the proposal to strike out. In light of what the claimants wrote, there is going to be a preliminary hearing to deal with whether the claimants’ claims should be subject to strike-out or deposit orders.[4]However, the claimants’ marriage / civil partnership discrimination claims so obviously have no prospects of success whatsoever that no useful purpose would be served by permitting them to continue.[5]The reason the marriage / civil partnership discrimination claims are misconceived is that they are based on an allegation that the respondent’s decisions were influenced by the fact that the claimants were not married to each other, or in a civil partnership with each other. Marriage / civil partnership discrimination law only protects those who are married or in a civil partnership; it is not illegal to discriminate against a person because they are not married or not in a civil partnership.[6]In these circumstances, and there being no discernible good reason why it might be appropriate to allow claims that are certain to fail to continue, I exercise my discretion to strike out the marriage / civil partnership discrimination claims. 1 of 2 Case Nos: 1300344, 1300345, 1300346 & 1300347/ 2024 RECONSIDERATION JUDGMENT The claimants’ application for consideration of the judgment dated 22 April 2025 and