A recent Court of Appeal ruling in HSBC Bank plc v Chevalier-Firescu has significant implications for employment discrimination claims, particularly regarding time limits and when employees have sufficient knowledge to bring a claim.
Background of the case
Carmen Chevalier-Firescu lost her job at Barclays soon after returning from maternity leave and later applied for a senior role at HSBC in 2018. Initially, HSBC provided positive feedback, but by July 2018, she was informed she would not be offered the position. At that time, she learned Barclays had given HSBC a negative reference. Suspecting that this was linked to her previous discrimination claims against Barclays, she pursued further claims against her former employer but did not bring a claim against HSBC.
Legal issues and court findings
The key issue in this case was when a claimant “knows enough” to bring a discrimination claim. The Employment Tribunal initially ruled that Chevalier-Firescu's claims were out of time, as she should have been aware by July 2018. However, both the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal found that the Tribunal had erred. The Court emphasised that mere suspicion of discrimination is not enough - claimants must have sufficient knowledge of the essential elements of their claim before the time limit applies.
Additionally, the ruling clarified that tribunals have discretion to extend time limits if claimants only later become aware of crucial facts. This is particularly relevant where new evidence, such as internal communications, emerges through Data Subject Access Requests (DSARs)—which played a critical role in this case.
Key takeaways for employers
Handling references: Employers must ensure references remain factual and unbiased, avoiding any retaliation against employees who have raised previous complaints.
Responding to DSARs: Delays or incomplete responses to data requests can lead to extended time limits for discrimination claims.
Training and awareness: HR teams and managers must be trained on discrimination risks in hiring processes and how internal communications could later be scrutinised in legal proceedings.
Conclusion
This judgment serves as a crucial reminder that claimants do not have to bring discrimination claims the moment they suspect bias - they must first have enough information to support their case. For employers, it reinforces the need for fair and transparent hiring practices to mitigate legal risks.
This article was generated using Lex HR, an AI tool designed to assist HR professionals with employment law. If you find the content helpful, please explore Lex HR and sign up for a free trial to see how it can benefit your HR practices.
