Race and sex discrimination claims dismissed as out of time: what constitutes a continuing act
A tribunal dismissed a manager's race and sex discrimination claims because they were presented too late, finding that separate promotion decisions were not part of a continuing act and that it was not just and equitable to extend time.
2 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant was employed from 1 October 2016 until dismissal for redundancy on 24 September 2021.
- The claimant alleged he was overlooked for promotion to IT finance director in January 2019 (sex discrimination).
- He alleged he was not given an opportunity to apply for IT Project Director role in June 2021 (sex discrimination).
- He alleged Rajan Kakar was promoted to Head of IT Finance over him in June/July 2021 (race discrimination).
- The discrimination claims were presented on 11 January 2022, after early conciliation from 10 to 22 December 2021.
- The tribunal found the claims were out of time and not part of a continuing act, and it was not just and equitable to extend time.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment with respondent.
-
Promotion of Michelle Cannon
Michelle Cannon was promoted to Director of Finance Planning and Analysis; claimant alleges he was overlooked.
-
Redundancy notification
Claimant was notified his role was at risk of redundancy.
-
Sick leave started
Claimant went off sick until 29 August 2021.
-
IT Project Director role
Claimant alleges he was not given opportunity to apply for IT Project Director role (sex discrimination).
-
Promotion of Rajan Kakar
Rajan Kakar was promoted to Head of IT Finance; claimant alleges race discrimination.
-
Grievance raised
Claimant submitted a six-page grievance while on sick leave, complaining about redeployment opportunities.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy.
-
Early conciliation started
Claimant started early conciliation with ACAS for unfair dismissal and discrimination claims.
-
Claim presented
Claimant lodged his claim with the Employment Tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's race and sex discrimination claims were presented within the three-month time limit (plus early conciliation extension), and if not, whether they formed part of a continuing act or whether it would be just and equitable to extend time.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's race and sex discrimination claims as out of time.
The key reasons were:
- The alleged acts of discrimination (overlooking for promotion in January 2019, not allowing application for IT Project Director role in June 2021, and promoting Rajan Kakar in June/July 2021) were separate acts, not a continuing act.
- The claims were presented on 11 January 2022, well after the three-month time limit from each act.
- The tribunal found no reason to extend time as the claimant had not provided a good explanation for the delay and the respondent would suffer prejudice.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Discrimination claims must be brought within three months of the alleged act (minus early conciliation) – delay can be fatal even if you later discover other issues.
- Separate promotion decisions are unlikely to be treated as a 'continuing act' unless there is an overarching policy or pattern of discrimination.
- If you believe you have been discriminated against, seek legal advice promptly and do not wait until after dismissal to bring claims.
- The tribunal has discretion to extend time if it is 'just and equitable', but you must provide a good reason for the delay – ignorance of the law is not enough.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates how strict the time limits are for discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010. The claimant, a Global IT Finance Planning and Analysis Manager with five years' service, alleged he was overlooked for promotion on three separate occasions due to his sex and race. However, because he did not present his claims until after his redundancy, the tribunal found they were all out of time.
The first alleged act – the promotion of Michelle Cannon in January 2019 – was over two years before the claim was lodged. The claimant said he felt discriminated against at the time but did not pursue it because he felt he had no choice. The tribunal noted that he was a senior professional who could have raised a grievance or sought advice earlier.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant could have brought claims within three months of each alleged act, or at least raised a grievance promptly. He did submit a grievance in August 2021 while on sick leave, but by then the time limits for the 2019 and June 2021 acts had already passed. The tribunal also found that the three alleged acts were not part of a 'continuing act' – they were separate decisions made by different people at different times. To establish a continuing act, there would need to be an ongoing policy or pattern, which was not shown here.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This decision reinforces that employees cannot wait until the end of their employment to bring discrimination claims about earlier events. Each alleged act starts its own three-month clock. Even if you are on sick leave or going through a redundancy process, you must act quickly. The tribunal also declined to extend time on 'just and equitable' grounds, noting that the claimant had not provided a good explanation for the delay and that the respondent would be prejudiced by having to defend stale allegations.
For anyone considering a discrimination claim, the key takeaway is: act promptly, keep records, and seek legal advice as soon as you believe you have been treated unfairly. Waiting can mean losing your right to bring a claim altogether.
Similar cases
Discrimination claims dismissed as too late: the importance of acting quickly
A tribunal dismissed a former sales consultant's race and religion discrimination claims because they were presented more than six months after her dismissal, and it was not just and equitable to extend time.
Agency healthcare assistant's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims struck out as out of time
An agency healthcare assistant's claims against the Secretary of State for Justice were dismissed after the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction over her unfair dismissal claim and her discrimination claims were presented two days late.
Redundancy and racial nickname claims dismissed as out of time
An employment tribunal dismissed claims of unfair dismissal and racial harassment from two former employees of the UAE Embassy, finding that their discrimination complaints were brought too late and that a redundancy selection based on performance was not tainted by race.
Late claim form costs employee unfair dismissal case despite discrimination claims proceeding
A senior customer service adviser with less than two years' service had his unfair dismissal claim thrown out for being presented 4.5 months late, but his discrimination claims will proceed to a full hearing.