Pregnancy discrimination claim refused: amendment application too late
A former employee of Three Rivers District Council was refused permission to add pregnancy discrimination claims to her existing race and constructive dismissal case, as the application came over two years after the time limit expired.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed from 2 January 2017 to 6 June 2021.
- She resigned and presented claims of race discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal on 15 September 2021.
- She applied to amend her claim to include pregnancy discrimination on 16 October 2022.
- The pregnancy discrimination allegations cover August 2019 to February 2020.
- The application was made over two years after the statutory time limit expired.
- The amendment was refused as it was a substantial new head of claim, out of time, and would cause prejudice.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment with Three Rivers District Council.
-
Pregnancy discrimination period begins
Alleged pregnancy discrimination started in August 2019.
-
Pregnancy discrimination period ends
Alleged pregnancy discrimination ended in February 2020.
-
Child born
Claimant gave birth to her son.
-
Returned from maternity leave
Claimant returned to work after maternity leave.
-
Employment ended
Claimant resigned and left employment.
-
ACAS notified
Claimant notified ACAS of potential claims of race discrimination and constructive dismissal.
-
ACAS certificate issued
ACAS Early Conciliation certificate granted.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented claims of race discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal.
-
Application to amend
Claimant applied to amend claim to include pregnancy discrimination.
-
Preliminary hearing
Hearing to consider the amendment application.
-
Judgment issued
Employment Judge M Bloom refused the amendment application.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to allow the claimant to amend her existing claim to add new allegations of pregnancy discrimination, considering the significant delay, the statutory time limits, and the balance of hardship between the parties.
The outcome
The tribunal refused the application to amend.
The key reasons were:
- The pregnancy discrimination allegations covered a period from August 2019 to February 2020, meaning the time limit expired around May 2020.
- The amendment was applied for in October 2022, over two years late.
- Even if included in the original claim in September 2021, it would have been 15 months out of time.
- The amendment was a substantial new head of claim requiring new facts and evidence, not a minor adjustment.
- Allowing it would cause prejudice to the council, as the relevant manager's recollection would be difficult after nearly five years.
No compensation was awarded as the amendment was refused.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you believe you have a discrimination claim, raise it as early as possible – ideally within three months of the last incident.
- If you are already in tribunal proceedings and want to add a new claim, apply to amend without delay; waiting over a year after deciding to do so will likely be too late.
- Be aware that adding a completely new type of discrimination (e.g., pregnancy discrimination) is treated as a substantial amendment and faces stricter scrutiny on time limits.
- If you have union or legal advice, ensure all potential claims are discussed and included at the outset to avoid later amendment difficulties.
A late amendment that couldn't be saved
This case shows how strictly employment tribunals apply time limits when a claimant tries to add a new type of discrimination claim long after the event. The former employee of Three Rivers District Council had already brought claims of race discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal. But she wanted to add pregnancy discrimination allegations dating back to 2019–2020 – over two years after the statutory deadline.
The tribunal acknowledged the claimant's personal difficulties, including anxiety and medication, but noted she had trade union support and had discussed pregnancy claims at the time. She did not include them in her original claim or in two grievances. She decided to amend in February 2022 but waited until October 2022 to apply.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant could have included the pregnancy discrimination allegations in her original claim, or at least applied to amend much sooner. The tribunal highlighted that even if she had included them in September 2021, they would still have been 15 months late. The delay meant the council's key witness would struggle to recall events from five years earlier, causing prejudice.
Why this matters for similar claims
This decision reinforces that amendments introducing entirely new heads of claim – especially those well outside time limits – face a high hurdle. Claimants should act promptly and seek advice early to ensure all potential claims are identified and brought within the relevant time limits. The balance of hardship weighed heavily against allowing the amendment, as the council would have faced a stale claim with limited evidence.
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.
Claim dismissed after former employee fails to attend preliminary hearing
A former employee's claims of constructive dismissal and discrimination were struck out after she failed to attend a preliminary hearing and did not provide a witness statement as directed.
Pharmacy assistant's constructive dismissal claim fails over annual leave refusals
A tribunal rejected claims of constructive unfair dismissal and race discrimination brought by a pharmacy assistant after her annual leave requests were refused and her grievance was not upheld.
Constructive dismissal claim thrown out for being 5 days late
A former employee's constructive unfair dismissal and discrimination claims were dismissed because they were presented 5 days late, with no medical evidence covering the relevant period.