Project engineer with under two years' service has unfair dismissal and discrimination claims struck out
A tribunal struck out a project engineer's unfair dismissal, sexual orientation discrimination, and wrongful dismissal claims after he was sacked for sending a confidential email to colleagues. His sex discrimination claim survived but required a £200 deposit.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #polyamory
- #sexual-harassment-allegation
- #email-policy-breach
- #insufficient-service
- #deposit-order
- #strike-out
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Project Engineer from 29 March 2021 to 5 January 2023.
- On 16 December 2022, the claimant had a flirtatious conversation with a female colleague.
- The colleague complained of sexual harassment, and the claimant was investigated.
- The claimant sent a four-page email to 11 colleagues, including the complainant, disclosing confidential investigation details.
- The claimant declined to attend disciplinary hearings and was summarily dismissed on 5 January 2023.
- The claimant had less than two years' continuous service, so he could not bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began working as a Project Engineer for the respondent.
-
Flirtatious conversation
The claimant had a flirtatious conversation with a female colleague, which later led to a harassment complaint.
-
Harassment complaint
The female colleague complained that the claimant sexually harassed her during the conversation and touched her twice.
-
Disciplinary hearing invitation
The claimant was invited to a disciplinary hearing scheduled for 3 January 2023 regarding the harassment allegation.
-
Claimant's email to colleagues
The claimant sent a four-page email to 11 colleagues, including the complainant, disputing the allegation and disclosing confidential information.
-
Suspension
The respondent suspended the claimant for breaching the email policy and added this to the disciplinary allegations.
-
Claimant's demand letter
The claimant sent a letter demanding a pay rise, promotion, and dismissal of the complainant, threatening resignation if not met.
-
First disciplinary hearing missed
The claimant attended the office but declined to attend the disciplinary hearing, saying he had not received suspension notification.
-
Dismissal
The disciplinary hearing proceeded in the claimant's absence; allegations were upheld and he was summarily dismissed.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Rhodes held a hearing to consider strike out and deposit orders.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's complaints had any reasonable prospect of success and whether to strike them out or order a deposit. The key issue was that the claimant had less than two years' service, so he could not bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, and his discrimination claims were based on weak evidence.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal, sexual orientation discrimination, and wrongful dismissal, finding they had no reasonable prospect of success. The sex discrimination complaint was not struck out but was ordered to be subject to a £200 deposit because it had little reasonable prospect of success.
- No compensation was awarded as the claims were struck out.
- The claimant was ordered to pay a £200 deposit to continue with the sex discrimination claim.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees with less than two years' continuous service generally cannot claim ordinary unfair dismissal unless the dismissal is for an automatically unfair reason.
- Sending confidential investigation emails to colleagues can be a serious breach of policy that justifies summary dismissal.
- Discrimination claims based on personal characteristics like polyamory require clear evidence linking the treatment to that characteristic.
- Refusing to attend disciplinary hearings can harm your case, as the employer may proceed in your absence.
- A tribunal can strike out a claim at a preliminary stage if it has no reasonable prospect of success, even without hearing full evidence.
A case that shows the limits of employment protection
This case highlights the importance of length of service in unfair dismissal claims. The claimant, a project engineer with just under two years at Armour Home Electronics, was dismissed after a flirtatious conversation led to a sexual harassment complaint. He then sent a four-page email to 11 colleagues disclosing confidential investigation details, which breached company policy. The employer dismissed him summarily.
Because the claimant had less than two years' service, he could not bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. He tried to argue that the dismissal was automatically unfair, but the tribunal found no evidence for that. His discrimination claims — based on sexual orientation (polyamory) and sex — were also weak. The tribunal noted that the claimant's own email and demand letter (asking for a pay rise and the complainant's dismissal) undermined his case.
What the employer did right
Armour Home Electronics followed a reasonable process: they investigated the harassment complaint, invited the claimant to a disciplinary hearing, and when he refused to attend, they proceeded in his absence. The claimant's email breach and subsequent behaviour gave the employer strong grounds for dismissal. The tribunal found that the claimant's complaints had no reasonable prospect of success, and struck them out.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that employment rights are not automatic. Employees with less than two years' service have limited protection against unfair dismissal. Discrimination claims require a clear link between the alleged treatment and a protected characteristic. Sending confidential emails to colleagues can be a serious breach of trust that justifies dismissal. The tribunal's decision to strike out the claims at a preliminary stage shows that weak cases can be stopped early, saving time and costs for all parties.
Similar cases
Site Manager with 8 months' service loses unfair dismissal claim
A site manager who was dismissed after just eight months had his unfair dismissal claim struck out for lack of qualifying service. His race discrimination claims were allowed to proceed but subject to a £100 deposit order.
17-year Tesco shift leader's unfair dismissal claim struck out for failing to comply with tribunal directions
A shift leader with 17 years' service had his unfair dismissal claim struck out after he failed to provide a witness statement, disclosure, or a schedule of loss, and did not engage with the respondent or the tribunal.
Unfair dismissal claim struck out: the two-year service rule in action
A former employee of the University of Bradford had his unfair dismissal claim struck out because he had less than two years' service. His harassment and disability discrimination claims were also struck out for procedural failures.
Former employee's claims struck out after failing to pay tribunal deposit
The employment tribunal struck out all three claims brought by a former employee against Openwork Limited after he failed to pay a deposit order. The tribunal also refused his applications for an extension of time and reconsideration.