Judgment approved by the court for handing down Mr J Logo v Payone Gmbh and others expected the conduct to be treated as having had the subjective effect of violating B’s dignity but liability would be excluded because it was not reasonable for it to have had that effect. Anyhow, the provision is worded as it is and must be construed accordingly. “violating dignity” 23. For treatment to constitute harassment it must violate B’s dignity. Employees are expected to demonstrate a reasonable level of robustness: Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal [2009] ICR 724 EAT and Grant v HM Land Registry [2011] EWCA Civ 769, [2011] ICR 1390 CA. Time limit 24. Section 120 EQA permits an employee to bring a complaint: 120 Jurisdiction (1) An employment tribunal has, subject to section 121, jurisdiction to determine a complaint relating to— (a) a contravention of Part 5 (work); 25. Section 123 EQA provides that: 123 Time limits (1) Subject to section 140B proceedings on a complaint within section 120 may not be brought after the end of— (a) the period of 3 months starting with the date of the act to which the complaint relates, or (b) such other period as the employment tribunal thinks just and equitable. [emphasis added] 26. Section 140B EQA permits an extension of time where ACAS early conciliation is undertaken in certain circumstances not relevant to this appeal. 27. In Jones v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2024] EAT 2, [2024] IRLR 275 the EAT suggested that the common practice of relying on the comments of Auld LJ at paragraph 25 of Bexley Community Centre (t/a Leisure Link) v Robertson [2003] EWCA Civ 576, [2003] IRLR 434, that time limits in the Employment Tribunal are “exercised strictly” in employment cases and that a decision to extend time is the “exception rather than the rule” out of context, as if © EAT 2025 Page 9 [2025] EAT 95