Claimant v Metropolitan Police Service

Tribunal found no breach of duty to make reasonable adjustments. Claimant suffered substantial disadvantage but adjustments had in fact been made and continued to operate: claimant continued to work from home and respondent had not taken action to prevent this. Respondent held case conference instead of formal UPP meeting. Efforts were made to find alternative role but none available. Tribunal concluded respondent's actions were entirely fair and reasonable.

Claimant alleged unfavourable treatment by threats of informal action and instigation of UPP process because of his inability to attend office arising from disability. Tribunal found the respondent's actions were reasonable and proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims: requiring officers to carry out full role based on medical advice, and instigating UPP after failure of informal process. Medical evidence stated claimant was fit to attend office with sensible precautions.

Tribunal found respondent's PCPs (requiring officers to attend office at least some of the time, and subjecting officers who refuse to engage to UPP process where they cannot fulfil full duties at home) were proportionate means of achieving legitimate aim. Reasonable for large police force to require office attendance where officers cannot fully complete duties at home, particularly where medical advice stated claimant was fit to attend office with precautions.