For further information or advice in dealing with discrimination claims, please contact our employment law specialists on 01332 226 126 or fill in the form below.
Conveyancing
Explore All ConveyancingCriminal Defence
Explore All Criminal DefenceEstate Planning
Explore All Estate PlanningEstate Administraion
Explore All Estate AdministraionDispute Resolution
Explore All Dispute ResolutionFamily & Matrimonial
Explore All Family & MatrimonialMotoring & Driving Offences
Explore All Motoring & Driving OffencesResidential Property
Explore All Residential PropertyResidential Property Disputes
Explore All Residential Property DisputesWills, Trusts & Estate Disputes
Explore All Wills, Trusts & Estate DisputesAgriculture
Explore All AgricultureBusiness Recovery
Explore All Business RecoveryCharities & social enterprises
Explore All Charities & social enterprisesCommercial Disputes
Explore All Commercial DisputesCommercial Law & Contracts
Explore All Commercial Law & ContractsCommercial Property
Explore All Commercial PropertyCorporate & Finance
Explore All Corporate & FinanceData Protection
Explore All Data ProtectionDebt Services
Explore All Debt ServicesEcclesiastical Law
Explore All Ecclesiastical LawEducation Law
Explore All Education LawEmployment Law
Explore All Employment LawFamily Businesses
Explore All Family BusinessesFinance Dispute Resolution
Explore All Finance Dispute ResolutionFinancial & Business Crime
Explore All Financial & Business CrimeInsurance Litigation
Explore All Insurance LitigationIntellectual Property
Explore All Intellectual PropertyLicensing
Explore All LicensingRegulatory & Corporate Defence
Explore All Regulatory & Corporate Defence
Generally, discrimination claims need to be presented to the tribunal within three months of the act of discrimination. However, a number of acts of discrimination may be linked and treated as conduct extending over a period of time, allowing a claimant to bring the discrimination claim within three months of the most recent act of discrimination.
28 March 2024
Case Study
In the case of Allen -v- Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) was tasked with determining whether unconnected acts of discrimination linked by their factual setting, could be deemed as ‘conduct extending over a period,’ thus falling within the standard time limit for discrimination claims.
In this instance, the Trust initiated a restructuring process, resulting in the claimant being informed of the discontinuation of her position. Although offered an alternative role with reduced pay, she declined, yet was not made redundant. Subsequently, the claimant went on sick leave and was later dismissed due to her prolonged absences.
At the employment tribunal (ET), the claimant lodged various claims, including allegations of age and disability discrimination, as well as unfair dismissal.
Prior to her dismissal, the claimant’s manager had ticked a box on a referral form asking occupational health to comment if the claimant should be considered for ill health retirement. The tribunal determined this action constituted age discrimination. Additionally, it found that the Trust had pre-determined the outcome of a grievance filed by the claimant, also constituting age discrimination.
Furthermore, the tribunal concluded that the claimant’s dismissal, which factored in her disability-related absences, constituted discrimination based on factors arising from her disability.
The final discriminatory act by the Trust, namely the claimant’s dismissal, fell within the three-month time limit for claim submission. The tribunal deliberated whether the initial two incidents – the request for consideration of ill health retirement and the pre-determination of the grievance – could be viewed as part of a continuous course of conduct alongside the dismissal, thus warranting an extension of the time limit from the date of the last incident.
Case Study
The tribunal deemed the three incidents as fundamentally linked, stemming from the Trust’s restructuring, thereby granting jurisdiction to hear the complaints.
However, the EAT contested that the outcome of the claimant’s grievance did not amount to discrimination. The tribunal’s only basis for connecting the claimant’s age to the grievance process was the inclusion of age discrimination allegations. There was no use of ageist language, therefore the EAT concluded that the pre-judgment of the grievance did not inherently involve age discrimination. The EAT held that the tribunal had not identified anything that connected the prejudgment of the grievance to the claimant’s age.
It was, however, established that the act of dismissing the claimant constituted the only act of discrimination within the ordinary tribunal time limits. Although the employment tribunal asserted that prior discriminatory acts could be considered ‘conduct extending over a period’ due to their relation to the restructuring, the EAT disagreed. The EAT argued that for conduct to extend over time, there must be ongoing discriminatory acts. Mere anticipation that subsequent events would not have occurred without prior incidents is insufficient. Continuous discrimination or discriminatory acts must be present within the conduct.
For further information or advice in dealing with discrimination claims, please contact our employment law specialists on 01332 226 126 or fill in the form below.
Related Services


The Court of Appeal has provided important guidance on the enforceability of training repayment clauses in employment contracts.
Read More

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has clarified when employers may be deemed to have knowledge of an employee's disability.
Read More

Download our probationary period resource pack to help prepare for the Employment Rights Act changes from January 2027.
Read More

An employer's failure to involve an employee in an investigation led to findings of disability discrimination and compensation.
Read More

The EAT highlights the limits of protected conversations and the risks employers face when discussions are handled incorrectly.
Read More

Employer ordered to pay over £264,000 after a reference referring to an ongoing dispute was found to amount to victimisation.
Read More

Download expert guidance on UK trade union reforms and prepare your organisation for Employment Rights Act changes.
Read More

EAT confirms endometriosis can be a disability and examines reasonable adjustments, dismissal risks and performance management issues for employers.
Read More

EAT confirms withdrawing a conditional job offer can breach contract with employers understanding when an offer is binding and notice applies.
Read More

EAT confirms leaving transferred staff on inferior terms can amount to indirect discrimination, even under TUPE.
Read More

EAT confirms dismissal must be based on the employer’s actual reason, not a substitute. Incorrect reasoning can make dismissal unfair.
Read More

EAT finds dismissal unfair in Milrine v DHL (2026). Key lessons for employers on appeal processes and reducing tribunal risk.
Read MoreScroll to next section
Scroll back to the top
