Chris Bryden & Michael Salter revisit old ground: naming respondents in discrimination claims
The scope and the liability of respondents in discrimination claims continues to present the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) with appeals. In previous articles we have outlined the lack of power by tribunals to order contributions between parties (An unsatisfactory state of affairs) and tactical considerations that may need to be borne in mind by advisers (The Early Bird...).
Jurisdiction
On 7 June 2013 the EAT addressed the issue of parties to discrimination claims again in the appeal of Hurst v Kelly UKEAT/0167/13/DM, [2013] All ER (D) 15 (Aug). The facts of this case are quite simple: both appellant and respondent were employees of PH Jones Ltd (PHJ). The employment of Ms Hurst (the appellant/claimant) with PHJ ended and she signed a compromise agreement precluding her presenting any claims against PHJ arising out of her employment or termination. Ms Hurst then presented a claim form to the Bedford Employment Tribunal (ET) alleging sexual harassment by Mr Kelly, her line manager.
At a final hearing (which
