Street cleaner's age discrimination claims struck out as speculative
A street cleaner who alleged an eight-year campaign of age discrimination and harassment by his employer had his claims struck out for having no reasonable prospects of success.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant has been employed as a street cleaner since a TUPE transfer in 2013.
- The claimant alleged a series of acts of age discrimination and harassment from 2014 to 2020.
- The respondent applied to strike out the claims for having no reasonable prospects of success.
- The tribunal found the claims were either out of time or based on speculation and far-fetched assertions.
- The claimant remained employed by the respondent despite alleging an eight-year campaign to get rid of him.
Timeline
-
Toilet permission instruction
The claimant was allegedly ordered to request permission to use public toilets during working hours.
-
Supervisor attack
Two supervisors allegedly attacked the claimant at his workplace.
-
Shade and break incidents
Mr Budd allegedly drove up and down to prevent the claimant from stepping into the shade and shouted at him for taking a break at 9:59 am.
-
Performance warning
The respondent demanded improved performance, threatening a decision on the claimant's employment.
-
Suspension without pay
The claimant was suspended for one week without pay.
-
Drinking water instruction
The claimant was allegedly told he had no right to sit and drink water without permission.
-
Verbal attack by supervisor
Mick Carter allegedly verbally attacked the claimant in front of colleagues.
-
Discipline for sick leave
The respondent disciplined the claimant for taking sick leave between 22 June and 17 July 2020.
-
First claim lodged
The claimant lodged his first employment tribunal claim.
-
Second claim lodged
The claimant lodged a second claim regarding alleged defamation and failure to deal with a grievance.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's allegations of age discrimination and harassment spanning from 2014 to 2020 should be struck out for having no reasonable prospects of success and/or being out of time.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out all claims. The key reasons were:
- Many allegations were out of time, with no reasonable basis to extend the time limit.
- The remaining allegations were speculative and lacked any supporting evidence.
- The claimant remained employed throughout, undermining his claim of a campaign to get rid of him.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employment tribunal claims must be brought within three months of the alleged act, unless it is part of a continuing course of conduct.
- Speculative allegations without supporting evidence are likely to be struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success.
- Remaining in employment can weaken a claim that the employer was trying to force you out.
- If you have multiple historical incidents, consider whether they form a continuing act or are separate claims subject to time limits.
What this case shows in practice
This case demonstrates the importance of bringing discrimination claims promptly and having solid evidence to back them up. The street cleaner alleged a series of incidents from 2014 to 2020, including being ordered to ask permission to use the toilet, being shouted at for taking a break a minute early, and being suspended without pay. However, many of these events occurred years before he lodged his first claim in September 2020. The tribunal found that the earlier incidents were not part of a continuing course of conduct and were therefore out of time.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant, who represented himself, could have lodged his claims much earlier. For the more recent incidents in 2020, the tribunal noted that his allegations were speculative and unsupported by evidence. For example, he claimed that being disciplined for sick leave was an act of age discrimination, but provided no basis for linking the two. The respondent, Ringway Hounslow Highways Limited, successfully argued that the claims had no reasonable prospects of success, partly because the claimant remained employed throughout the alleged eight-year campaign, which undermined his narrative.
Why this result matters for similar claims
This case serves as a reminder that tribunals will not allow claims to proceed if they are based on speculation or if the claimant has missed the time limits. It also highlights the importance of keeping a clear timeline and gathering evidence early. For employees considering a discrimination claim, the key takeaway is to act promptly and ensure that each allegation has a factual basis, rather than relying on a general sense of unfair treatment.
Similar cases
Strike-out and deposit order: a mixed outcome for former employee with osteoarthritis
A former employee with osteoarthritis faced strike-out of one harassment claim but was allowed to proceed with others, including unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, after a preliminary hearing.
36-year employee dismissed on redundancy: tribunal allows discrimination claims to proceed
A tribunal has allowed age and sex discrimination claims to proceed against a car sales company, while striking out an unfair dismissal claim because the claimant was not employed by the respondent at the time of dismissal.
Lead Software Consultant's whistleblowing claims dismissed as out of time
An employment tribunal struck out a Lead Software Consultant's whistleblowing detriment and automatically unfair dismissal claims, leaving only an ordinary unfair dismissal claim to proceed. The tribunal also refused the employer's bid to strike out the remaining claim due to the claimant's conduct.
25-year employee loses unfair dismissal and discrimination claims after harassment allegations ruled out of time
A process controller with 25 years' service had his harassment claim struck out as too old, and his unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims dismissed after a full hearing. The tribunal found the dismissal was fair and any discrimination was justified.