Claimant v The Chief Constable of the Norfolk Constabulary

The tribunal found that the respondent imposed unrealistic return-to-work targets and attendance triggers, ignored medical advice recommending a gradual phased return starting at 2 hours per day every other day, and dismissed the claimant despite not having properly tried the recommended flexible approach. The treatment was not a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of managing absence.

The tribunal found the respondent's 12-week limit on recuperative duties and requirement to work from the office placed the claimant at substantial disadvantage. It would have been reasonable to allow a phased return starting at 2 hours every other day over 6 months with flexible pay, and to permit home working. The respondent failed to take these reasonable steps despite medical advice supporting them.

The tribunal found the respondent created an environment of inevitable failure by setting unrealistic targets, repeatedly asking for medical advice but not following it, refusing to allow the claimant's wife to accompany him to meetings, failing to respond to his email expressing he felt bullied, and misrepresenting medical advice. While not intentional, these actions reasonably created an intimidating, hostile, and degrading environment for the claimant.

The tribunal found that while various PCPs (attendance requirements, 12-week recuperative limit, standard absence triggers) did place disabled people at disadvantage, they pursued the legitimate aim of managing absence and were proportionate because the policies contained provisions for adjustments. The individual application to the claimant was properly a matter of reasonable adjustments, not indirect discrimination.