Agency worker's pregnancy discrimination claim allowed to proceed out of time
A warehouse operative who worked via an agency was not an employee of Taylor Made Golf, but her pregnancy discrimination claim as a contract worker was allowed to proceed despite being nearly a year late.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant worked as a warehouse operative for the respondent via agency Adecco from 6 January 2020 to 12 March 2021.
- The claimant had a written contract of employment with Adecco, not with the respondent.
- The respondent accepted the claimant was a contract worker under section 41 of the Equality Act 2010.
- The claimant's discrimination claim was presented nearly a year after the primary limitation period expired.
- The claimant made repeated but unsuccessful attempts to submit her ACAS EC certificate to the tribunal between June 2021 and June 2022.
- The tribunal found it just and equitable to extend time for the discrimination claim as a contract worker.
Timeline
-
Start of assignment
The claimant began working as a warehouse operative for the respondent via Adecco.
-
Termination of assignment
The claimant's assignment with the respondent ended. This is the date of the alleged discrimination and dismissal.
-
First claim presented
The claimant presented a claim against both Adecco and the respondent (case 1401378/2021).
-
Claim against respondent rejected
The tribunal rejected the claim against the respondent for lack of a valid ACAS EC certificate.
-
ACAS EC certificate issued
ACAS issued an EC certificate naming the respondent (R142861/21/77).
-
Claimant sent EC certificate to tribunal
The claimant emailed and posted the EC certificate to the tribunal, but it was not actioned.
-
Second claim form presented
The claimant presented a second claim form (case 1402748/2021) mistakenly naming Adecco as both respondents.
-
CMPH and further EC certificate submission
At a case management hearing, the claimant was directed to send the EC certificate again, which she did, but it was not actioned.
-
Settlement with Adecco
The claimant settled her claim against Adecco via ACAS COT3.
-
Current proceedings issued
The claimant presented the current claim (case 1402030/2022) against the respondent.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was an employee of the respondent for unfair dismissal and detriment claims, and whether her discrimination claim as a contract worker should be allowed to proceed out of time.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claims of unfair dismissal and detriment because the claimant was not an employee of Taylor Made Golf – she was employed by agency Adecco. However, the respondent accepted she was a 'contract worker' under section 41 of the Equality Act 2010, so her pregnancy discrimination claim could proceed on that basis.
The discrimination claim was presented nearly a year after the three-month time limit, but the tribunal exercised its discretion to extend time. The claimant had made repeated but unsuccessful attempts to submit her ACAS early conciliation certificate to the tribunal between June 2021 and June 2022, and the tribunal found it just and equitable to allow the claim to proceed.
No compensation was awarded at this preliminary stage – the case will now proceed to a full hearing on the discrimination allegations.
Lessons & takeaways
- Agency workers may not be employees of the end-user company, but they can still bring discrimination claims as 'contract workers' under the Equality Act.
- If you miss the three-month deadline for a discrimination claim, the tribunal can extend time if it is 'just and equitable' – the longer the delay, the stronger the reason needed.
- Keep records of every attempt to submit tribunal documents – repeated but unsuccessful efforts can help persuade a tribunal to extend time limits.
- Settling with one respondent (here, the agency) does not automatically bar a claim against another respondent (the end-user).
A case about status and timing
This case highlights two common hurdles in employment tribunal claims: employment status and time limits. The claimant, a warehouse operative, worked for Taylor Made Golf through agency Adecco. When her assignment ended during pregnancy, she brought claims of unfair dismissal, detriment, and discrimination. But because she had no direct contract with Taylor Made Golf, her unfair dismissal and detriment claims failed – she was not their employee.
However, the respondent accepted she was a 'contract worker' under the Equality Act, meaning she could still pursue discrimination claims. The bigger problem was timing: she presented her claim nearly a year after the three-month deadline. The tribunal had to decide whether to allow it to proceed.
What the losing side could have done differently
Taylor Made Golf argued that the claim was too late. But the tribunal found that the claimant had made genuine, repeated attempts to submit her ACAS early conciliation certificate – emailing and posting it, only for the tribunal not to action it. The respondent could have conceded earlier that time should be extended, avoiding the need for a preliminary hearing. For claimants, this case shows the importance of persisting with tribunal filings even when there are administrative hiccups.
Why this matters for similar claims
This decision reinforces that agency workers are protected from discrimination by the end-user, even if they are not employees. It also shows that tribunals will take a flexible approach to time limits where the claimant has tried their best but faced system errors. Anyone in a similar position should seek advice quickly, but also know that a late claim is not automatically doomed – especially if you can show you did everything you could to file on time.
Similar cases
Race discrimination claim dismissed after social worker missed time limit
An experienced social worker's race discrimination and constructive dismissal claims against Devon County Council were dismissed because she presented her claim too late, and the tribunal refused to extend time.
Late claim for constructive dismissal: tribunal loses jurisdiction
A former employee of Greggs plc who resigned after grievances were not upheld had her unfair dismissal claim dismissed because she presented it 26 days after the three-month time limit.
Epilepsy discrimination claims dismissed as out of time: a lesson in tribunal deadlines
A fraud consultant with epilepsy lost his disability discrimination and constructive dismissal claims against Lloyds Bank because he filed them too late. The tribunal also found the claims lacked merit.
Senior nurse's unfair dismissal claim struck out after being filed over four years late
A tribunal struck out a senior nurse's unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims because she filed them more than four years after the deadline, despite knowing the time limits.