Former employee with less than two years' service loses discrimination claims against HMRC
An employee who worked for HMRC for under two years had their unfair dismissal claim automatically struck out, and their discrimination claims failed on the merits.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by HMRC for less than two years.
- The claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, race discrimination, and religion or belief discrimination.
- The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed due to insufficient service.
- The disability discrimination claim was dismissed because the claimant was not found to be disabled.
- The direct discrimination and harassment claims were dismissed on the merits.
- Some matters were out of time but the tribunal extended time as just and equitable.
Timeline
-
First preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Mason dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant had less than two years' service.
-
Second preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Richardson dismissed the disability discrimination claim, finding the claimant not disabled under the Equality Act 2010.
-
Final hearing day 1
The tribunal heard evidence and submissions on the remaining claims of direct discrimination and harassment.
-
Final hearing day 5 and judgment
The tribunal dismissed all remaining claims, finding no contravention of the Equality Act. Some matters were out of time but time was extended.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employee's claims of direct discrimination and harassment under the Equality Act 2010 were well-founded, and whether certain matters were brought within the time limits.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. The unfair dismissal claim was struck out at a preliminary hearing because the employee had less than two years' service. The disability discrimination claim was also dismissed at a preliminary hearing as the employee was not found to be disabled under the Equality Act. At the final hearing, the remaining claims of direct discrimination and harassment were dismissed on the merits. The tribunal extended time for some out-of-time matters as just and equitable, but the claims still failed. No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees with less than two years' service generally cannot bring unfair dismissal claims, unless the reason is automatically unfair (e.g., whistleblowing).
- To bring a disability discrimination claim, you must meet the legal definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010, which requires a substantial and long-term adverse effect on daily activities.
- Time limits for discrimination claims are strict; claims must be brought within three months of the act complained of, though tribunals can extend time if just and equitable.
- Representing yourself can be challenging; the tribunal will consider the evidence carefully, but lack of legal representation may affect the presentation of your case.
This case illustrates the significant hurdles employees face when bringing claims against their employer, particularly when they have limited service. The former employee, who worked for HMRC for less than two years, saw their unfair dismissal claim automatically dismissed at a preliminary hearing. Under UK law, employees generally need two years' continuous service to claim unfair dismissal, unless the dismissal is for an automatically unfair reason such as whistleblowing or discrimination.
The discrimination claims
The employee also brought claims of disability, race, and religion or belief discrimination. However, the disability claim was dismissed early because the tribunal found the employee did not meet the legal definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010. This highlights that not every health condition qualifies as a disability; it must have a substantial and long-term adverse effect on the person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
The remaining claims of direct discrimination and harassment were heard at a final hearing but ultimately failed on the merits. The tribunal found that HMRC had not contravened the Equality Act. Some of the allegations were brought out of time, but the tribunal extended the time limit as it was just and equitable to do so. However, even with the extension, the claims did not succeed.
What could have been done differently?
For the employee, ensuring that any discrimination claims are brought within the strict three-month time limit is crucial. Additionally, gathering strong evidence to support the claims and considering legal advice early on could have strengthened the case. For employers, this case is a reminder that even when claims are weak, the process can be lengthy and costly. HMRC was represented by counsel and the case spanned several hearings over nearly three years.
Key takeaway
This case underscores the importance of understanding the legal thresholds for bringing employment claims. Short-service employees have limited protection against unfair dismissal, and discrimination claims require careful preparation and timely action.
Similar cases
Professional footballer's unfair dismissal claim out of time but discrimination claims allowed to proceed
A tribunal ruled that a QPR footballer's unfair dismissal claim was brought too late, but allowed his race and harassment claims against the club, manager John Yems and Crawley Town to go forward due to his severe depression.
Taxi driver's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims dismissed as out of time
A taxi driver who waited over six months to bring his claim after Uber deactivated his account has had his case thrown out by the Nottingham tribunal for being well outside the three-month time limit.
Process and Technical Manager's out-of-time claim dismissed by tribunal
A tribunal dismissed a claim for unfair dismissal and discrimination after the claimant presented his case one day late and failed to attend hearings or provide any explanation for the delay.
Race discrimination and wage claim dismissed as out of time: no extension granted
A former employee's claims for race discrimination and unlawful deduction of wages were dismissed because they were brought too late. The tribunal also refused a reconsideration application.