The Secretary of State for the Department of Work & Pensions v Iqbal

For time-limit purposes under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010, a tribunal must identify a factual basis for treating conduct as extending over a period. It cannot treat discrimination as continuing merely because a temporary working arrangement was not permanent where its own findings limit the discriminatory requirement to an earlier date.

When deciding whether it is just and equitable to extend time, a tribunal has a wide discretion and may consider all relevant matters. It should normally first consider the reason for the delay, including how an asserted mental condition or stress affected the claimant’s ability to bring proceedings in time. Reasons which do not address that causal issue are inadequate.

The claimant, a disabled employee of the Department for Work and Pensions, succeeded before the Employment Tribunal in claims for indirect disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The claims concerned the employer’s insistence on full-time contractual hours until it agreed part-time working on 24 April 2012.

The Tribunal held that the discrimination continued until dismissal because the part-time arrangement was not permanent. Alternatively, it would have extended time on just and equitable grounds because of the claimant’s mental state and stress following a notification of an investigation. The employer appealed the Tribunal’s jurisdictional conclusions under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010.

1. Appeal allowed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal remitted both time-limit issues to the Employment Tribunal.

2. The finding that the employer’s conduct was a continuing state of affairs until dismissal had no identified factual basis. The Tribunal made no finding that the claimant had sought a permanent contractual change to his hours, or that the temporary nature of the part-time arrangement adversely affected him. Its conclusion was also inconsistent with its express findings that the full-time requirement, and the failure to make the requested adjustment, ended on 24 April 2012.

3. The question of the date from which time ran under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 therefore had to be reconsidered. If time ran from the earlier date, the Tribunal also had to reconsider whether to extend it.

4. The Tribunal had a wide discretion on a just and equitable extension and could take account of any relevant factor. Nevertheless, it was normally necessary first to consider the reason for delay. Its reasons did not analyse either the cause of the claimant’s asserted extreme stress or its effect on his ability to commence the discrimination claims within three months. That omission was material, particularly as he was able to work and pursue an appeal and an unfair-dismissal claim during the relevant period.

5. Both issues were remitted, if possible, to the same Tribunal. It was to receive submissions but no further evidence.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: allowed the employer’s appeal and remitted the section 123 issues to the Employment Tribunal.
• Employment Tribunal, London (Central): decision sent to the parties on 16 December 2014. It upheld the indirect disability discrimination and reasonable-adjustments claims, treated the conduct as continuing until dismissal, and indicated that it would extend time on just and equitable grounds.