Senior social media manager's race harassment claims partially struck out due to time limits
A tribunal struck out several race harassment and victimisation allegations from a senior social media manager against Herbalife Europe, ruling they were brought too late. Other claims will proceed to a final hearing.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #race-discrimination
- #harassment
- #victimisation
- #conduct-extending-over-a-period
- #just-and-equitable-extension
- #strike-out
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Senior Social Media Manager from 13 January 2020 to 19 August 2022.
- The claimant complained of harassment related to race and victimisation under the Equality Act 2010.
- The respondent applied to strike out parts of the claim as out of time.
- The tribunal struck out some allegations as having no reasonable prospect of success due to time limits.
- Other allegations were allowed to proceed to a final hearing where time limits will be determined substantively.
Timeline
-
Alleged harassment by office manager
The office manager commented on a policy not to eat 'smelly' foods like curry at the desk.
-
Alleged harassment by Shaun Wynne-Jones
Line manager said claimant was 'too bullish' and sent a personality test.
-
First protected act
Claimant emailed senior HR and CEO reporting racism in the London office and EMEA markets.
-
Second protected act
Claimant raised a formal grievance to Head of Legal about procurement and discrimination.
-
Third protected act
Claimant met with HR and complained about victimisation and harassment by Julie Faucher.
-
Alleged victimisation - forced team move
Claimant was forced to move teams despite not wanting to for fear of racial harassment.
-
Fourth protected act
Claimant complained about a social media policy excluding topics on race, gender, and sexual orientation.
-
Fifth protected act
Claimant complained to HR about homophobic and racially discriminatory behaviour by colleagues.
-
Alleged harassment by Chris Stirk
Chris Stirk referred to ethnic minorities as 'ugly' and called claimant 'too woke'.
-
Sixth protected act
Claimant completed a feedback survey reporting xenophobic culture and lack of diversity training.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed, allegedly due to redundancy but he contends it was because of protected disclosures.
-
Claim presented to tribunal
ET1 presented, including complaints of harassment and victimisation.
-
Preliminary hearing on time limits
Tribunal heard strike out application based on time limits under s.123 Equality Act 2010.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether certain allegations of race harassment and victimisation should be struck out because they were brought too late under the Equality Act 2010, and whether time should be extended.
The outcome
The tribunal partially granted the respondent's application to strike out. Several allegations of harassment and victimisation were struck out as out of time, including comments about 'smelly' foods in January 2020, being called 'too bullish' in April 2020, and being forced to move teams in June 2021. However, other allegations, including a failure to investigate a protected disclosure made in June 2022 and a comment about ethnic minorities being 'ugly' in March 2022, were allowed to proceed. The time limit issue for the remaining claims will be decided at the final hearing.
No compensation was awarded as this was a preliminary hearing on time limits only.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employment tribunal claims for discrimination must usually be brought within three months of the last act of discrimination – check the deadline carefully.
- If you believe there has been a continuing course of conduct, you may be able to rely on acts outside the three-month window, but the tribunal will examine whether they form part of an ongoing process.
- Presenting your claim as soon as possible after the last act reduces the risk of having parts struck out as out of time.
- Seeking legal advice early can help identify which allegations are likely to be in time and which may need a 'just and equitable' extension argument.
A case of partial victory on time limits
This case shows how strictly employment tribunals apply the three-month time limit for discrimination claims – and how some allegations can survive if they are part of a continuing course of conduct. The claimant, a senior social media manager with nearly three years' service, alleged a series of race-related harassment and victimisation incidents spanning from January 2020 to his dismissal in August 2022. However, because he did not present his claim until December 2022, the tribunal had to decide which allegations were in time.
The tribunal struck out several early allegations, including a comment about 'smelly' foods in January 2020 and being called 'too bullish' in April 2020, because they were isolated acts more than three months before the claim was presented. The claimant argued that all the acts formed a continuing course of conduct, but the tribunal disagreed for those specific incidents, finding they were not sufficiently connected to later acts.
What the employer did right – and wrong
Herbalife Europe successfully argued that many of the older allegations were out of time and should not proceed. However, the tribunal allowed several later allegations to go forward, including a failure to investigate a protected disclosure made in June 2022 and a comment in March 2022 about ethnic minorities being 'ugly'. This means the employer will still have to defend those claims at a final hearing.
Why this matters for similar claims
For employees considering a discrimination claim, this case is a reminder that time limits are strict and early legal advice is crucial. Even if you believe there is a pattern of behaviour, the tribunal may still strike out older incidents if they are not clearly linked to later ones. For employers, the case shows that a robust strike-out application can reduce the scope of a claim, but it will not necessarily eliminate it entirely – especially where there are allegations close to the time limit that may form part of a continuing course of conduct.
Similar cases
Labourer's race discrimination claim survives strike-out bid despite late witness statement
A construction labourer who alleges he was subjected to monkey chants and racist abuse can proceed with his claim after the tribunal refused to strike it out, despite his late compliance with orders.
Social worker's race discrimination claim over 'aggressive' stereotype dismissed
A black social worker with 15 years' service lost her claims of race discrimination and constructive dismissal after an altercation with a white colleague. The tribunal found no evidence of stereotyping or unfair treatment.
Deputy Design Director loses redundancy and discrimination claims against Greenland UK
A deputy design director who brought claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and unlawful deduction from wages after being made redundant has lost all her claims at the London Central Employment Tribunal.
Agency lawyer's race discrimination claims against council dismissed; costs ordered
An agency Contracts and Procurement Lawyer lost her race discrimination, harassment and victimisation claims against the London Borough of Waltham Forest. The tribunal also ordered her to pay costs for pursuing claims with no reasonable prospect of success.