Sex discrimination amendment refused: comparing safety concerns with colleague
A former employee's attempt to add a sex discrimination claim based on how her safety concerns were handled compared to a colleague's was refused by the tribunal as out of time and lacking merit.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant brought claims for constructive unfair dismissal, race and disability discrimination on 25 March 2022.
- At a preliminary hearing on 14 February 2023, the claimant was allowed to amend to add sex discrimination complaints already raised as race discrimination, but needed a written application for new allegations.
- The claimant applied on 1 May 2023 to add a sex discrimination claim based on different treatment regarding safety concerns compared to a colleague.
- The respondent opposed the amendment, arguing it was out of time and lacked merit.
- The tribunal refused the amendment, finding the proposed claim had little prospect of success and it would be unfair to the respondent.
Timeline
-
Colleague reports intruder
A colleague reported an intruder and received a positive response from management.
-
Claimant raises safety concerns
The claimant emailed her line manager about lone working and safety concerns, referencing previous intruder incidents.
-
Manager responds dismissively
The manager responded, dismissing the claimant's concerns and questioning her account of events.
-
Claimant presents claim
The claimant brought claims for constructive unfair dismissal, race and disability discrimination.
-
Preliminary hearing
At a preliminary hearing, the claimant was allowed to amend to add sex discrimination complaints already raised as race discrimination, but needed a written application for new allegations.
-
Claimant applies to amend
The claimant provided details of the proposed amendment to add a sex discrimination claim based on different treatment regarding safety concerns.
-
Hearing day 1
The tribunal heard the application to amend.
-
Judgment given
Employment Judge Burge refused the application to amend, finding the proposed claim had little prospect of success.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to allow the former employee to amend her existing claim to add a new allegation of sex discrimination, considering the application was made after the time limit and the strength of the proposed claim.
The outcome
The tribunal refused the application to amend. The proposed sex discrimination claim was based on a comparison between how the claimant's safety concerns were handled in 2021 and how a colleague's report of an intruder was handled in 2020. The tribunal found this comparison had little prospect of success because the two situations were significantly different in nature and timing. Additionally, the application was made over a year after the original claim and after a preliminary hearing had already set deadlines, causing unfair prejudice to the respondent.
No compensation was awarded as the amendment was refused.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you want to add a new claim to an existing tribunal case, apply as early as possible and explain why it is linked to your original complaint.
- Comparisons for discrimination claims must involve similar circumstances and be made within the time limit (usually three months from the alleged act).
- A tribunal will consider the balance of hardship: if allowing an amendment would unfairly prejudice the respondent, it is likely to be refused.
- Seek legal advice before bringing a claim, as amendments after deadlines are difficult to obtain without strong justification.
This case shows how tribunals approach late applications to add new discrimination claims. The former employee had already brought claims for constructive unfair dismissal, race and disability discrimination. She then sought to add a sex discrimination claim, arguing that her employer responded more positively to a colleague's report of an intruder than to her own safety concerns about lone working.
Why the amendment was refused
The tribunal applied the established Selkent principles. The proposed amendment introduced a new allegation of sex discrimination that was not closely connected to the existing claims. The timing was problematic: the application was made over a year after the original claim and after a preliminary hearing had already allowed some amendments. The tribunal also found the proposed claim had little merit because the two incidents were not comparable – the colleague's report was about a specific intruder event, while the claimant's concerns were about general lone working risks raised a year later.
What this means for similar claims
For anyone considering bringing a discrimination claim, this case highlights the importance of acting promptly. Time limits for discrimination claims are strict, and amendments after the deadline face a high hurdle. The tribunal will weigh the prejudice to both sides, and if the proposed claim appears weak or the delay is unexplained, it is likely to be refused. The claimant here represented herself, which may have contributed to the procedural difficulties. Legal advice early in the process can help ensure all potential claims are included from the outset.
Similar cases
19-year employee's claims dismissed as out of time despite disabilities
A bureau operator with 19 years' service had his claims for breach of contract and discrimination thrown out because they were lodged over four years after his dismissal.
Former employee awarded notice pay after tribunal extends time for late claim
A tribunal extended time for an unfair dismissal claim filed 11 days late, but struck it out for lack of merit. The claimant succeeded only on a breach of contract claim for notice pay, receiving £948.78.
Former employee's claims struck out as out of time and for unreasonable conduct
A former employee's unfair dismissal, whistleblowing and discrimination claims have been struck out after being brought too late, with the tribunal also citing unreasonable conduct. The respondent was awarded £5,000 in costs.
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.