An LPC graduate’s attempt to extend the filing deadline for her employment tribunal claim has been denied by the tribunal in London.
In a recent decision by the London employment tribunal, Judge Tinnion rejected the extension request of Ms J Fawcett, an LPC graduate who previously worked at Charles Lyndon, a litigation boutique. Ms Fawcett was aware of the three-month window to file an employment tribunal claim following the end of her employment, yet she failed to take action within this period.
Ms Fawcett’s internship with the firm concluded in September 2023, after being dismissed and placed on gardening leave in August of the same year. She later sought to file claims of constructive dismissal, direct sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and disability discrimination nearly seven months after her contract’s conclusion, in March 2024. However, her claims were submitted well beyond the statutory timeframe, leaving the tribunal to consider whether an extension would be justifiable.
Judge Tinnion stated that Ms Fawcett did not provide a satisfactory reason for her delay in filing. Despite having completed an employment law module as part of her LPC, Ms Fawcett was fully aware of the incidents she alleged but did not act accordingly. Her legal education should have made her cognisant of her rights and the timeframe within which she could present her case.
Ms Fawcett argued her inability to secure legal counsel from the Citizens Advice Bureau post-employment. The tribunal found that even without CAB assistance, she had the necessary knowledge to proceed independently. With no attempts detailed to secure advice, the tribunal questioned the practical benefits that speaking to the CAB would have conferred, given her familiarity with her legal rights under the Equality Act 2010.
Further, Ms Fawcett suggested personal challenges, including disputes with neighbours and issues with her partner, contributed to her filing delay. Nevertheless, Judge Tinnion observed that documents she authored during this period were logical and clear, suggesting she was competent enough to draft and submit her claim in due time.
Medical evidence supporting an extension was absent. Although Ms Fawcett self-identified as having autism spectrum disorder, she did not clarify how this impeded her ability to file on time. The tribunal concluded that her health status did not inhibit her from presenting her claim within the required timeframe.
Ultimately, Judge Tinnion concluded that Ms Fawcett had the capacity to submit her claim timely after her employment termination and failed to justify her protracted filing.
Despite presenting various personal and circumstantial reasons for her delayed action, the tribunal found Ms Fawcett’s rationale insufficient to warrant an extension of the filing deadline.
