A Donaldson v Information Commissioner's Office: 2406904/2022

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2406904/2022
A DonaldsonClaimantInformation Commissioner’s OfficeRespondent
Employment Judge BattenDate 11 September 2024

JUDGMENT

The complaint of disability discrimination is struck out.

REASONS

[1]The claimant was ordered to pay a deposit of £300.00 for each of 2 allegations of disability discrimination (payment to be received by 4pm on 19 June 2024) following a preliminary hearing held on 8 May 2024. The Deposit Order was sent to the claimant on 28 May 2024.[2]The claimant has failed to pay such deposit(s) on time, or at all, no monies having been received by the Tribunal. Instead, the claimant has confirmed in writing to the Tribunal that he no longer wishes to pursue allegations of disability discrimination.[3]The complaint of disability discrimination is therefore struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.[4]The complaint of age discrimination is not affected by this judgment and shall proceed to a hearing. _____________________________ Employment Judge Batten Date: 3 July 2024[1]The claimant was ordered to pay a deposit of £300 per complaint totaling £600 for the following allegations; 1.1.The grievance options allegation and 1.2.The 7-day deadline allegation as explained in the Case Management Summary (Part One of the case management order accompanying the deposit order dated 8 May 2024 and sent to the parties on 28 May 2024 following a preliminary hearing held on the 8 May 2024).[2]The Order was sent to the claimant on 28 May 2024.The claimant has failed to pay this deposit.[3]The allegations are therefore struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. 2. This does not affect the remaining claims and the hearing fixed for 9 to 12 September 2024 will take place. Employment Judge Shotter Date: 12 July 2024[3]The claimant’s complaint of direct discrimination on grounds of age is well- founded. That means it succeeds. The claimant’s complaint age-related harassment is not well-founded. That means it does not succeed. We find that there is a 100% chance that the claimant’s probationary period would have been extended by three months in June 2022, even absent the discrimination we have found to have taken place.