Electrician's mate with four days' service withdraws discrimination claims
A tribunal dismissed claims of race and disability discrimination brought by an electrician's mate who worked for only four days, after the claimant withdrew most allegations.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant worked as an electrician's mate from 13 to 16 September 2021.
- The claimant alleged race and disability discrimination against Clearfield Recruitment Ltd and Smart Electrical & Security Ltd.
- The claimant withdrew his unfair dismissal claim against Exchequer Solutions Ltd at the preliminary hearing.
- The claim against Exchequer Solutions Ltd under Section 112 EqA was dismissed as out of time.
- The claimant's application to amend his claim against Clearfield was partially refused.
- On 9 May 2023, the claimant withdrew allegations 1, 2 and 3 against Clearfield.
Timeline
-
Start of assignment
The claimant started working as an electrician's mate on a site in Leeds.
-
Incident with Ben
Ben shouted at the claimant for using his mobile phone; the claimant said this exacerbated his mental ill-health.
-
Assignment terminated
Clearfield told the claimant his assignment was ending. Exchequer sent him a self-employed contract.
-
Complaint to Clearfield
The claimant complained of race discrimination to Clearfield.
-
First claim presented
The claimant presented a claim against Clearfield and Smart Electrical alleging discrimination.
-
Second claim presented and amendment application
The claimant presented a claim against Exchequer and applied to amend his first claim.
-
Preliminary hearing (day 1)
The tribunal heard applications and decided on time limits and amendment.
-
Reserved decision in chambers
Employment Judge Cox considered the case and prepared the reserved judgment.
-
Final hearing and withdrawal
The claimant withdrew allegations 1, 2 and 3 against Clearfield; the claims were dismissed.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether claims against Exchequer Solutions Ltd were presented in time and had reasonable prospects, and whether to allow an amendment to the claim against Clearfield Recruitment Ltd.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. The claimant withdrew his unfair dismissal claim and the Section 111 Equality Act claim against Exchequer Solutions Ltd. The remaining Section 112 claim against Exchequer was struck out as out of time and not just and equitable to extend. The claimant also withdrew allegations 1, 2 and 3 against Clearfield Recruitment Ltd, and his application to amend the claim was partially refused. No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Short service (here, four days) can make it difficult to establish the length of continuous employment needed for unfair dismissal protection.
- Claims under the Equality Act must be brought within three months of the alleged discrimination, unless it is just and equitable to extend time.
- Withdrawing allegations at a hearing can lead to dismissal of the claim, so consider the strength of your case before doing so.
- Amending a claim late may be refused if the new allegations are out of time or have no reasonable prospects.
A very short assignment leads to a complex discrimination claim
This case shows how a brief period of work can still generate multiple legal claims, but also how procedural hurdles can quickly bring them to an end. The claimant worked as an electrician's mate for just four days in September 2021, supplied by Clearfield Recruitment Ltd to work on a site in Leeds. He alleged that during that time he was subjected to race and disability discrimination, including an incident where a colleague shouted at him for using his mobile phone.
Why the claims failed
The claimant brought claims against three respondents: Clearfield, Smart Electrical & Security Ltd (the end client), and Exchequer Solutions Ltd (an umbrella company that handled payroll). However, the tribunal found that the claim against Exchequer under Section 112 of the Equality Act was presented too late – the three-month time limit had passed, and it was not just and equitable to extend it. The claimant also withdrew his unfair dismissal claim against Exchequer and the Section 111 claim. Against Clearfield, the claimant withdrew three of his allegations at the final hearing, leaving no live claims.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant represented himself and faced a complex procedural landscape. He had brought multiple other claims and had requested several postponements due to his mental health. A solicitor might have advised him on the strict time limits and the risks of withdrawing allegations without securing a settlement. For respondents, the case illustrates that even short assignments can lead to discrimination claims, so clear policies and respectful treatment of agency workers are important.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that employment tribunal claims have strict procedural rules. Time limits for discrimination claims are short, and amendments are not automatically allowed. Claimants should seek legal advice early, especially if they have multiple claims or health issues. For employers, it shows that even a four-day worker can bring a claim, but also that robust responses and clear evidence can help defend against unmeritorious allegations.
Similar cases
20-year lunchtime supervisor loses constructive dismissal claim filed too late
A lunchtime supervisor with 20 years' service resigned claiming constructive dismissal but filed her claim 117 days late. The tribunal dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction and struck out discrimination claims as having no reasonable prospect of success.
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.
Withdrawn discrimination claims: tribunal refuses reconsideration despite new evidence
A former employee who withdrew her disability and race discrimination claims at a preliminary hearing was unable to have them reinstated, even after finding new evidence. The tribunal refused reconsideration, ruling that a change of heart is not enough.
Unfair dismissal claim dismissed despite severe mental health: the 'reasonable period' trap
A bank employee's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed as out of time, even though the tribunal accepted her severe mental health made it not reasonably practicable to claim within the first three months.