John Lewis plc

Case Summary

The claimant was dismissed on 8 March 2024 and appealed unsuccessfully on 28 March 2024. She presented her ET1 claim form on 28 April 2025, approximately eight months after the primary time limit had expired. The tribunal found that all claims (wrongful dismissal, direct discrimination on grounds of race and/or belief, harassment, and indirect discrimination) were brought out of time and accordingly dismissed them for lack of jurisdiction.

The claim form was presented on 28 April 2025, approximately eight months after the primary time limit for bringing the claims had expired. The tribunal did not extend time for the discrimination and harassment claims, finding it was not just and equitable to do so.

• •Whether claims were brought outside the three-month time limit under the Equality Act 2010
• •Whether it was just and equitable to extend time for discrimination and harassment claims
• •Whether it was not reasonably practicable to bring wrongful dismissal claim in time
• •Interpretation and application of time limit provisions in section 123(1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010

1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant Respondent Ms C Anthony v John Lewis plc Heard at: Watford, via Cloud Video Platform (“CVP”) On: 30 April 2026 Before: Employment Judge Hyams, sitting alone Appearances: For the claimant: Mr Elliott Hammer, solicitor For the respondent: Mr Mark Green, of counsel JUDGMENT All of the claims made by the claimant (of (1) wrongful dismissal, (2) direct discrimination within the meaning of section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 because of race and/or belief contrary to section 39 of that Act, (3) harassment within the meaning of section 26 of that Act, contrary to section 40 of that Act, and (4) indirect discrimination within the meaning of section 19 of that Act, contrary to section 39 of that Act) were made out of time and the tribunal therefore does not have jurisdiction to hear them. They are accordingly dismissed. REASONS The claims 1 The claimant was dismissed by the respondent summarily on 8 March 2024. She appealed against that dismissal and her appeal was dismissed (I was told in the manner stated in paragraph 4 below) on 28 March 2024. In these proceedings, 2 the claimant claims principally that her dismissal was contrary to sections 13 and 39 of the EqA 2010 in that it was less favourable treatment of her because of her race and/or a belief of hers which she claims was within the meaning of section 10 of that Act. The claimant also claims in the alternative that the manner in which she was treated was harassment within the meaning of section 26 of that Act, contrary to section 40 of that Act, but it appeared from what Mr Hammer said during the hearing of 30 April 2026 which I conducted that that claim might not be being pursued. In addition, the claimant claims that she was indirectly discriminated against. I found that claim (stated in paragraphs 39 and 40 of the particulars of cl…