WRC held the employee’s discrimination and harassment claim against Accenture was out of time under the Employment Equality Acts and therefore statute-barred.

The Complainant said he had been unfairly dismissed in April 2023 (later overturned on appeal) and again in March 2024. He maintained both decisions were substantively and procedurally unfair. He argued that his disciplinary history arose from inadequate training and a toxic work environment. Further, a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) that dragged on without conclusion and other issues were part of the circumstances. Regarding the 2024 dismissal, he accepted he submitted a timecard late but said this was due to his grandmother’s death (and he had never been properly trained on timecards). He denied misconduct in reclassifying unpaid lateness as paid time and said miscommunication with his team lead explained any error. He further claimed he was mentally unfit to attend a hearing until after May 2024 and criticised the refusal to defer. He alleged harassment and discrimination by a senior team lead (on race and religion grounds), said HR failed to investigate properly, and asserted repeated disregard for his wellbeing. He sought re-engagement to a different role and/or compensation. He said he struggled to secure new work despite efforts.

The Respondent said it had clear policies and training on time and expense reporting, sick leave, professional conduct, and disciplinary procedure. It said the Complainant had undergone multiple disciplinaries, culminating in a 2023 dismissal that was overturned on appeal and replaced with a 12-month final written warning (to May 2024). In February 2024, he missed timecard deadlines despite reminders; when his team lead submitted a corrective timecard classifying chronic lateness as unpaid, the complainant altered it minutes later to mark 12 hours as worked and certified it as accurate. He also breached the Sick Leave Policy by late certification, failing to attend a scheduled medical assessment, and attempting to delay the disciplinary hearing to a date just after his warning would expire. The Respondent said the 2024 dismissal for misconduct (i.e. timecard falsification plus sick-leave breaches) was within the band of reasonable responses, proportionate, and procedurally fair. He was notified of allegations, allowed representation, heard at disciplinary and appeal stages, given minutes and policies, and reasons were explained. On the equality claim, it said the WRC lacked jurisdiction due to time limits and, in any event, no comparator and/or prima facie case had been established.

The Adjudicating Officer found the discrimination/harassment complaint was out of time and therefore outside the WRC’s jurisdiction. Under s.77(5) of the Employment Equality Acts, a complaint must be lodged within six months of the discriminatory act (extendable to twelve months for reasonable cause).

The Complainant lodged his claim on 5 June 2024, but the last alleged discriminatory incident occurred on 14 April 2023. He provided no evidence of misrepresentation (s.77(6)), no contractual or ongoing provision (s.77(6A)), and no continuous pattern of discrimination linking those events to his dismissal in March 2024. As he did not pursue a discriminatory dismissal claim, dismissal issues were addressed under his unfair-dismissal case. With no in-time acts or continuum of discrimination to support an extension, the Complaint fell outside both the six- and twelve-month statutory limits. It was therefore statute-barred, and the WRC had no jurisdiction to hear it.

• This case highlights the importance of understanding statutory time limits for discrimination complaints. Employers should note that claims must generally be brought within six months of the last alleged incident, extendable to twelve months only for “reasonable cause”.   
  
• Maintaining clear, dated records of incidents, investigations, and communications are important in defending claims and showing no discriminatory conduct. Where grievances are raised, employers should investigate promptly and document outcomes to prevent later assertions of neglect.  
  
• Finally, ensure employees are informed of internal grievance procedures and statutory rights, reducing the risk of claims being escalated outside the permitted timeframe(s). 
  

The full case can be found here.