The EAT overturned the strike-out of race discrimination complaints in Waithaka v Barclays. The judgment explains why different managers, incidents and forms of treatment may still form part of one continuing state of affairs for Equality Act time-limit purposes.
Employment Tribunal conduct may be disruptive in effect while mental impairment remains relevant to its cause. This article examines evidence, non-attendance, costs, unless orders, strike-out and fairness to both parties.
Employment Tribunals have broad powers to support vulnerable parties. But an impaired litigant in person may struggle to identify the barrier, explain its functional effect and provide the evidence needed for a proportionate adjustment.
Employment Tribunal proceedings do not inevitably cause mental illness. But for a litigant in person, self-representation can add anxiety, cognitive load and procedural pressure to an already damaging workplace dispute.
A complaint can contain a detailed chronology and extensive evidence while leaving the central questions undefined. An issue map separates the issues, positions, evidence, findings and outcomes that require a decision.
Templates can improve clarity and consistency. The accountability problem begins when standard wording replaces engagement with the individual complaint, evidence and circumstances.
A final response may close a file, but that does not always mean the complaint has been answered. Administrative closure belongs to the process. Substantive resolution belongs to the issue.
A decision does not need to discuss every document. But where central evidence disappears from the reasoning, the person affected may be unable to understand how the issue, evidence, finding and outcome connect.
A response can be complete in form and incomplete in substance. The accountability problem lies in the gap between the issue raised and the question answered.
Outcome is not explanation. Reasons matter because they make decisions intelligible, accountable and capable of proper scrutiny.
