Key Facts
- •Sameena Bashir (Appellant) appealed a judgment dismissing her Equality Act 2010 and Agency Workers Regulations 2010 complaints.
- •Bashir worked as an agency tutor for the London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (Respondent 1), via Remedy Education.
- •She alleged discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and unfair dismissal against the Borough and other respondents (Three Angel Health Care Ltd and two of its carers).
- •The Employment Tribunal struck out her claims, citing time limits and lack of reasonable prospects of success.
- •The key issue was whether Respondent 1 could be vicariously liable for the actions of Respondent 4 (a carer from Three Angel Health Care Ltd).
Legal Principles
Agency Workers Regulations 2010: After 12 weeks, agency workers have the right to equal pay and conditions as direct employees.
Agency Workers Regulations 2010, Regulation 5
Equality Act 2010: Employers are vicariously liable for the acts of their employees; principals can be liable for the acts of their agents; and claims must generally be brought within three months of the last act of discrimination.
Equality Act 2010, sections 109, 110, 123(3)
Employment Rights Act 1996: Time limits for unfair dismissal claims; consideration of whether it was reasonably practicable to bring a claim within the time limit.
Employment Rights Act 1996, sections 43K, 103A, 111
Vicarious liability: The common law test for agency, requiring that the alleged agent be acting on behalf of the principal with the principal’s authority (Kemeh v Ministry of Defence [2014] EWCA Civ 91).
Kemeh v Ministry of Defence [2014] EWCA Civ 91
Outcomes
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) set aside the strike-out of Bashir’s Equality Act 2010 and Agency Workers Regulations 2010 complaints.
The EAT found the Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to properly analyse whether Respondent 1 could be vicariously liable for Respondent 4’s actions under the Equality Act 2010 and by not adequately considering whether the actions constituted a continuous course of conduct affecting the time limits.
The Employment Rights Act 1996 claim remained dismissed.
Bashir did not provide an arguable basis for extending the time limit.