Mrs G North v Vorboss Ltd: 2205568/2022
JUDGMENT
[1]It is the judgment of the Tribunal that: The following eight allegations or arguments by the Claimant have little reasonable prospect of success: Di rect sex discrimination /Harassment1.1.1 Event 1 less fav ourable treatment relating to an incident in August 21 when the male driver, H, took over the Claimant’s collection and took items back from a Central London site to the Respondent’s base in East London. (In the alternative, the Claimant says that this event amounts to harassment in that she experienced unwanted conduct when the male driver, H, took over the Claimant’s collection and took items back from a Central London site to the Respondent’s base in East London.) Di rect sex discrimination1.1.2 Event 2 – less favourable treatment when the Claimant’s probation period was extended by 3 months.1.1.3 Event 3 – less favourable treatment when the Claimant was paid a bonus of 10% Case No. 2205568/2022 21.1.4 Event 4 -less favourable treatment when the Claimant was required to clean the toilet area in the welfare vehicle.1.1.5 Event 6 – less favourable treatment when the Claimant was not promoted. Direct race discrimination1.1.6 Event 1- less favourable treatment in September 2021 when an Asian male engineer got into the Claimant’s van and started to pray.1.1.7 Event 2 - less favourable treatment on 5th January 2022 when an Asian male engineer got into the Claimant’s van and started to pray.1.1.8 Event 3 – less favourable treatment when the Respondent dismissed the Claimant on 5th April 2021[2]The Claimant is ORDERED pursuant to Rule 39 of the 2013 Rules to pay a deposit of £20 in respect of each of the eight allegations or arguments listed above not later than 14 days from the date this Order is sent as a condition of being permitted to continue to advance those allegations or arguments.[3]The Judge has had regard to information from the Claimant as to his ability to comply with the order in determining the amount of the deposit.[4]If the Claimant wishes to withdraw any element of his claim, then he must inform the Respondent and the Tribunal not later than 14 days from the date this Order is sent and will not be required to pay a deposit in respect of that element of his claim. If the Claimant wishes to proceed with all his claims, then he must pay a total deposit of £300. If he wishes to proceed with only part or parts of his claim, he must specify which part(s) he wishes to continue with.[5]Case management orders have been made and are set out separately. Background[6]The Claimant, who is a professional driver with a Hackney carriage licence, was employed by the respondent as a mobile field support driver from 7th of June 2021 until 5th of April 2022 when she was dismissed by the respondent. She was on sick leave from 6th January 2022. A Claim form was received on 4th August 2022. On 14th August 2022, the Tribunal received an email making the following complaints:• Harassment on grounds of sex• Direct sex discrimination;• Direct race discrimination.[7]It appears that this document should have been attached to her claim form. The ACAS early conciliation process began on 30th May 2022 and concluded on 5th July 2022. Case No. 2205568/2022 3[8]The unfair dismissal claim was subsequently withdrawn. The unfair dismissal claim was subsequently withdrawn. Her complaints related Her complaints related to eight separate events which are outlined in the list of issues. One concerns to eight separate events which are outlined in the list of issues. One concerns harassment on the grounds of sex, five events relate to sex discrimination (event harassment on the grounds of sex, five events relate to sex discrimination (event 1 is put as bot1 is put as both harassment and direct sex discrimination) and the final three h harassment and direct sex discrimination) and the final three events concern race discrimination. An unfair dismissal claim was withdrawn. events concern race discrimination. An unfair dismissal claim was withdrawn.[9]The The Respondent which is an Internet service provider offering a dedicated fibre Respondent which is an Internet service provider offering a dedicated fibre network for London businessesnetwork for London businesses, , denies the claims in full. The denies the claims in full. The RespondentRespondent employed between 15 and 29 people employed between 15 and 29 people inin the the Claimant’sClaimant’s team during the period of team during the period of her employment. She was the only female member of field staff within the Team. her employment. She was the only female member of field staff within the Team.[10]The claimant had been dismissed due to poor behaviour aThe claimant had been dismissed due to poor behaviour and its impact upon nd its impact upon other work colleaguesother work colleagues It says that she was absent from work for sickness for the It says that she was absent from work for sickness for the final three months of her employment.final three months of her employment. It said that any events before either 3It said that any events before either 3rdrd or or 1313thth May 2022 were not in time and that it would not be just and equitablMay 2022 were not in time and that it would not be just and equitable to e to extend time.extend time.[11]At a case management hearingAt a case management hearing, EJ Davidson refused the Respondent’s , EJ Davidson refused the Respondent’s application to list a public preliminary hearing to consider a strike out application. application to list a public preliminary hearing to consider a strike out application. She She granted its application to list a public preliminary hearing to consider its granted its application to list a public preliminary hearing to consider its dedeposit application. That hearing was originally listed for posit application. That hearing was originally listed for 1313thth February 2023.February 2023.[12]The Tribunal had a bundle of The Tribunal had a bundle of 6767 pages. pages.[13]For the reasons given at today’s hearing, the Tribunal found that there was little For the reasons given at today’s hearing, the Tribunal found that there was little reasonable prospect of reasonable prospect of all eight discrimination all eight discrimination allegations or arguments allegations or arguments succeeding and made the above deposit orders. succeeding and made the above deposit orders.[14]Having considered the Claimant’s means, the Tribunal decided that an order to Having considered the Claimant’s means, the Tribunal decided that an order to pay pay ££2020 in respect of each of those arguments or allegations would not impede in respect of each of those arguments or allegations would not impede the Claimant’s access to justice. the Claimant’s access to justice.[15]Case management orders were made and those are contained in a separate Case management orders were made and those are contained in a separate judgment. judgment. B McKennaB McKenna __________________________________________________________ Employment Judge