Teacher's sex discrimination claim against union struck out as too late
A former teacher's sex discrimination claim against the National Education Union was struck out after she filed it two and a half years after the alleged 'please be nice' email. The tribunal found no continuing act of discrimination.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant submitted her claim on 2 September 2021, alleging sex discrimination and victimisation by the National Education Union.
- The only specific act identified as discriminatory was an email sent on 12 February 2019 containing the phrase 'Please be nice'.
- The claimant had ongoing communications with the union after that date, but the tribunal found these did not constitute continuing acts of discrimination.
- The claim was presented more than three months after the alleged discriminatory act, and the claimant did not provide a reason for the delay.
- The tribunal struck out the claim as out of time and having no reasonable prospects of success.
Timeline
-
Email from Darren Smith
Darren Smith sent an email to the claimant containing the phrase 'Please be nice', which the claimant considered sexist.
-
Claimant's complaint email
The claimant emailed the union raising complaints about Darren Smith, Paul McLaughlin, and Alan Warner, citing the 'smile' email.
-
Avis Gilmore's response
Avis Gilmore, Deputy General Secretary, responded comprehensively to the claimant's complaints and directed her to the complaints procedure.
-
Claimant's complaint about Avis Gilmore
The claimant complained about Avis Gilmore, again referencing the 'smile' email as 'clear sexism'.
-
Paul McLaughlin's response
Paul McLaughlin, Regional Secretary, responded comprehensively to the claimant's allegations and invited her to pursue the matter through appropriate channels.
-
Claimant's email to union membership
The claimant sent an email to union members containing an online survey with derogatory statements about union employees, leading to a disciplinary referral.
-
Suspension of membership
The claimant's union membership was suspended for 12 months following a disciplinary hearing.
-
Email exchange with Amanda Brown begins
The claimant began an email exchange with Amanda Brown, Deputy General Secretary, regarding her membership and legal support.
-
Amanda Brown's final email
Amanda Brown informed the claimant that her concerns could not be the subject of an appeal to the subcommittee.
-
Claim form submitted
The claimant submitted her claim form to the Employment Tribunal alleging unfair dismissal and sex discrimination.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's sex discrimination claim was presented within the statutory time limit and whether it had any reasonable prospects of success.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the claim as out of time and having no reasonable prospects of success.
- The only specific act identified as discriminatory was an email sent on 12 February 2019 containing the phrase 'Please be nice'.
- The claim was presented on 2 September 2021, over two and a half years later, well beyond the three-month time limit.
- The claimant argued that ongoing communications with the union amounted to continuing acts, but the tribunal disagreed, finding no continuing act of discrimination.
- No compensation was awarded as the claim was struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- Time limits are strict: you generally have three months minus one day from the discriminatory act to bring a claim.
- If you believe discrimination is ongoing, you must show a continuing act or a series of linked acts within the time limit.
- Filing a claim without specific details of the discriminatory acts and dates can lead to strike-out for having no reasonable prospects.
- If you are a litigant in person, seek advice early to understand the time limits and what you need to prove.
A claim that ran out of time
This case shows how strict the time limits are for bringing a sex discrimination claim. The claimant, a former teacher and union member, alleged that an email from a union official containing the phrase 'Please be nice' was sexist. She considered this a discriminatory act, but did not file her claim until over two and a half years later.
The tribunal found that the only specific act of discrimination identified was the email of 12 February 2019. The claimant had ongoing correspondence with the union after that date, but the tribunal concluded that this did not amount to continuing acts of discrimination. The claim was therefore out of time.
What the union could have done differently
The union responded to the claimant's complaints at the time, offering to follow its complaints procedure. However, the claimant did not pursue that route. The union could have been more proactive in explaining the time limits for tribunal claims, but ultimately the responsibility lies with the claimant to act promptly.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that employment tribunal claims must be brought within strict time limits – usually three months from the act complained of. Even if you feel there is a pattern of behaviour, you need to identify specific acts within the time limit. The tribunal also noted that the claim lacked specific details, which contributed to its decision to strike it out as having no reasonable prospects of success.
Similar cases
Sales commission agent's claims struck out after failing to comply with orders and bringing claims too late
A sales commission agent who brought claims against five different employers had most of his case struck out because the claims were out of time and he failed to provide required details. The tribunal also found he lacked the two years' service needed for an unfair dismissal claim.
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.
Live-in nanny's whistleblowing claim struck out as too late
A live-in nanny who reported her employers to the NSPCC had her whistleblowing and discrimination claims struck out after waiting over a year to bring them to tribunal.
Whistleblowing claim: repeated amendment applications not unreasonable enough for costs
A former chartered accountant who made multiple applications to amend her whistleblowing and sex discrimination claims avoided a costs order, even though most amendments were refused. The tribunal said her conduct was not unreasonable or vexatious.