Line Driver's discrimination claims dismissed as out of time after redundancy
An employment tribunal dismissed all discrimination claims brought by a part-time Line Driver with 4 years' service against Manheim Limited, finding they were brought too late and lacked merit. The unfair dismissal claim was withdrawn.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a part-time Line Driver from 28 September 2016 until his dismissal on 15 January 2021.
- The claimant had type 2 diabetes and lumbago with sciatica, which were accepted as disabilities.
- The claimant was dismissed due to redundancy when all Line Drivers were made redundant.
- The claimant withdrew his unfair dismissal complaint during the hearing.
- All discrimination complaints were dismissed as out of time or on the merits.
- The tribunal found no evidence of racist comments or unfavourable treatment due to disability.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment as a part-time Line Driver at the Wimbledon site.
-
Meeting about conduct
Meeting with Jaci Hubbard and Richard Farrar regarding the claimant ignoring a briefing; claimant did not raise racist comments.
-
Occupational Health report
Report noted back pain and recommended lighter duties if available.
-
Barrier duty incident
Claimant was asked to operate a barrier for 3 hours, causing severe back pain.
-
Inspector role discussion
Claimant alleges he was rejected for inspector role due to disability; tribunal found no rejection occurred.
-
Meeting about sick pay
Meeting with Hubbard and White; claimant agreed to remain off sick until health improved.
-
Claimant went on sick leave
Claimant emailed confirming he would be off sick for treatment; he remained off work until dismissal.
-
Dismissal due to redundancy
Claimant was dismissed as part of a redundancy process affecting all Line Drivers.
-
Claim presented
Claim form presented to the tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's complaints of race-related harassment, disability discrimination, and failure to make reasonable adjustments were brought within the legal time limits, and if not, whether it was just and equitable to extend time. It also considered whether there was any direct disability discrimination in the dismissal itself.
The outcome
The tribunal found that all discrimination complaints were out of time. The alleged acts of race-related harassment occurred in 2017 and early 2019, and the claimant did not present his claim until May 2021 – well over three months later. The tribunal refused to extend time, noting the claimant had not provided a good reason for the delay and the respondent would be prejudiced.
The complaint of direct disability discrimination relating to the dismissal also failed because the dismissal was due to redundancy, not the claimant's disability. The unfair dismissal complaint was withdrawn by the claimant during the hearing.
No compensation was awarded as all claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employment tribunal claims for discrimination must be brought within three months of the act complained of – delays can be fatal even if you later instruct a solicitor.
- If you have a long gap between the alleged discrimination and presenting your claim, you need a very strong reason to persuade the tribunal to extend time.
- A genuine redundancy situation can be a fair reason for dismissal even if you are disabled, as long as the employer does not treat you unfavourably because of your disability.
- Withdrawing an unfair dismissal claim means you cannot get any compensation for it – consider the strength of your case before doing so.
A case of timing and redundancy
This case shows how strict time limits can be in discrimination claims. The claimant, a part-time Line Driver with type 2 diabetes and back problems, alleged that colleagues made racist comments and that he was treated unfavourably because of his disabilities. However, the alleged incidents happened in 2017 and early 2019, and he did not bring his claim until May 2021 – more than two years later. The tribunal found that the claims were well outside the three-month time limit and refused to extend time, noting that the claimant had not explained the delay and the employer would be unfairly disadvantaged by having to defend such old allegations.
The claimant was dismissed in January 2021 when Manheim Limited made all Line Drivers redundant. He argued that his dismissal was an act of direct disability discrimination, but the tribunal disagreed. The evidence showed that the redundancy was genuine and that the claimant was selected because his role was eliminated, not because of his health. The tribunal also noted that the claimant had been on long-term sick leave for nearly two years before the redundancy, but that did not make the dismissal discriminatory.
What the employer did right
Manheim Limited conducted a proper redundancy process, including consulting with affected employees and considering alternative roles. The tribunal found no evidence that the employer treated the claimant less favourably because of his race or disability. The claimant had also withdrawn his unfair dismissal claim during the hearing, which meant the tribunal did not need to consider whether the redundancy was fair in all the circumstances.
Key takeaway for similar claims
This case is a reminder that employment tribunal claims must be brought promptly. If you believe you have been discriminated against, you should seek legal advice and present your claim within three months of the last incident. Even if you later decide to withdraw part of your claim, the time limits still apply to the remaining parts. For employers, the case shows that a well-documented redundancy process can protect against discrimination claims, even when the employee has a disability.
Similar cases
Clinical Support Worker awarded statutory redundancy payment after 19 years' service
A tribunal awarded a statutory redundancy payment of £2,077.16 to a Clinical Support Worker with 19 years' service, finding that his refusal of an alternative role was not unreasonable.
Redundancy dismissal and victimisation claims fail: law enforcement officer loses tribunal case
A law enforcement officer with four years' service was fairly dismissed by redundancy and his claims of race and age discrimination, harassment, and victimisation were dismissed by the tribunal.
Former employee's claims dismissed as out of time despite early conciliation
A former employee's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims were struck out after the tribunal found they were presented too late, even though she had started early conciliation.
Deputy principal dismissed for redundancy after consultation meeting lacked clear purpose
A deputy principal with 14 years' service was unfairly dismissed after the trust failed to tell her the purpose of a redundancy consultation meeting. The tribunal awarded no compensation, however, finding she would have been dismissed anyway.