Ms P Chapman v Pearlcare (Sandford) Ltd and others: 1601128/2021
JUDGMENT
[1]The claimant’s application that late disclosed documents be admitted in evidence is refused in the interests of justice.[2]The following claims are dismissed on being withdrawn by the claimant:2.1 All claims against the third respondent, who is dismissed as a party to these proceedings.2.2 The claims of direct sex discrimination and harassment based on allegations:2.2.1 That there was a requirement by default for the claimant to use an area designated by the second respondent to get changed (a claim made against the first and second respondents).2.2.2 That there was a lack of appropriate changing facilities for women (a claim against the first respondent) Case Number: 1601128/2021[3]The claimant made protected disclosures to the first respondent, information tending to show in her reasonable and genuine belief that the health and safety of residents at the care home at which she worked had been, was being and was likely to be endangered.[4]The claimant’s claims were presented out of time, save for her dismissal claim, and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear them.[5]Alternatively, the claimant’s claims of Public Interest Disclosure detriment, (allegedly being shunned, ignored and “branded a trouble maker”), sex discrimination (both direct discrimination and harassment in respect of alleged mis-use of a CCTV camera), fail and are dismissed.[6]The claimant’s claim of automatic unfair dismissal ( a claim that the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal was that she made protected disclosures) fails and is dismissed. The claimant was dismissed on 31st March 2021 for a reason related to conduct.