Mrs C Warriner v Carmand Ltd: 2601648/2017
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant has a disability and has suffered from a disability as defined under Section 6 Equality Act 2010 since 23 July 2015.[1]The Claimant presented her claim to the employment tribunal on 9 October 2017. She had been employed by the Respondent from 3 July 2014 until she resigned on 12 July 2017. She worked for them as a manager.[2]Her claims are;2.1 unfair dismissal2.1.1 under Section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA)2.1.2 under Section 103A ERA;2.2 disability discrimination namely2.2.1 direct discrimination under Section 13 Equality Act 2010(EA)2.2.2 discrimination arising from disability under Section 15 EA2.2.3 failure to make reasonable adjustments under Section 20/21 EA;2.3 harassment under Section 26 EA;2.4 sex discrimination namely direct;2.5 detriments for making protected disclosures under Section 47B ERA;2.6 notice pay;2.7 holiday pay;2.8 failure to provide written particulars of employment. Case No: 2601648/17 Page 2 of 5[3]The matter came before my colleague, Employment Judge Ahmed, on 16 January 2018. He ordered that this hearing should take place to consider;3.1 whether the complaints of sex and disability discrimination, breach of contract, unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages and harassment should be struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success;3.2 alternatively, to consider ordering a deposit under Rule 39 of the Employment Tribunals Rules 2013;3.3 to determine whether the Claimant was a “disabled person”;3.4 in relation to the complaints of detriment and/or dismissal for making protected disclosure, to identify which acts amounted to a protected disclosure and which acts can and should properly proceed to a final hearing. The hearing today[4]The Claimant attended and was represented by Ms A Del Priore, Counsel. The Respondent did not attend. I asked my usher to contact the Respondent’s representative over the telephone but there was no reply to that at that number. The Respondent has not explained why they have not attended today’s hearing.[5]At the hearing, I heard evidence from the Claimant about her disability and considered the medical evidence produced by the Claimant. I have not given written reasons with this judgment but I can say that I was satisfied that the Claimant has suffered from a disability as defined in Section 6 EA since 23 July 2015. If written reasons are requested, I can provide these in the usual way. Striking out the Response[6]In view of the Respondent’s behaviour in not attending the hearing today and not giving any explanation, I am satisfied that I should consider striking out the Response under the provisions of Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.[7]The reason for this is that the defence of the matter is apparently not being actively pursued in accordance with Rule 37(1)(d). Striking out warning[8]I am considering striking out the Response because it is not being actively pursued. If the Respondent wishes to object to this proposal, they should give reasons in writing by 14 May 2018. If there is no response, the parties will be notified of my decision. Notes Reasons having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. Case No: 2601648/17 Page 3 of 5