Mr C Tandi v Bank of China (UK) Ltd: 2219384/2024

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2219384/2024
Mr C TandiClaimantBank of China (UK) LtdRespondent
Employment Judge KeoghIn person for claimantMr S Butler (instructed by Counsel) for respondentDate 9 July 2025

JUDGMENT

The following complaints are struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success:(i) Automatic unfair dismissal, section 104 Employment Rights Act 1996(ii) Direct sex discrimination, section 13 Equality Act 2010(iii) Direct associative disability discrimination, section 13 Equality Act 2010 (iv)Failure to make reasonable adjustments, sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 (v) Harassment related to sex

REASONS

[1]The respondent applied to strike out all complaints except victimisation. The application was heard on 6 January 2025 and oral reasons were given for the decision at the hearing and summarised in the case management orders.[2]The following claims remain and will proceed to the final hearing:(i) Direct race discrimination(ii) Indirect disability discrimination(iii) Harassment related to race(iv) Victimisation Employment Judge Keogh 14 January 2025[1]The complaint of direct race discrimination was not presented within the applicable time limit. It is not just and equitable to extend the time limit. The claim is therefore dismissed.[2]In the alternative, the complaint of direct race discrimination is not wellfounded and is dismissed. Indirect discrimination[3]At the relevant times the claimant was not a disabled person as defined by section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of dyslexia with ADHD characteristics, Generalised Anxiety Disorder, or anxiety.[4]The complaint of indirect disability discrimination is not well-founded and is dismissed. Case No: 2219384/2024 Harassment[5]The complaint of harassment related to race was not presented within the applicable time limit. It is not just and equitable to extend the time limit. The claim is therefore dismissed.[6]In the alternative, the complaint of harassment related to race is not wellfounded and is dismissed. Victimisation[7]The complaint of victimisation is not well-founded and is dismissed. Approved by: