Claimant v Secretary of State for Justice

The tribunal was satisfied that the recruitment fitness test PCP was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims including ensuring fitness to discharge duties, maintaining safety and security, and operational efficiency. The regime of three attempts, training support, and the possibility of adjusted tests (RAFT) was necessary and proportionate. No lesser discriminatory means was available. The tribunal could not be satisfied on the statistical evidence that the age group 40-59 was put at particular disadvantage by the recruitment test specifically (as opposed to the annual test).

The respondent conceded the PCP put women at particular disadvantage. However, the tribunal found the PCP to be a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims. The physical demands of the Grade 3 Prison Officer role justified the fitness test. The regime provided three attempts, training support, occupational health input, and adjusted tests where appropriate. The tribunal was satisfied no less discriminatory means could achieve the same legitimate aims of safety, security, and operational efficiency.

The tribunal found that the repeated requests to participate in the fitness test were not related to the claimant's age. They related to her status as a new recruit transitioning to permanent employment. The tribunal could not conclude the conduct was unwelcome or that it was reasonable for the claimant to perceive it as violating her dignity or creating an intimidating environment, given the extensive support and opportunities offered.

The tribunal found that the repeated requests to participate in the fitness test were not related to the claimant's gender. They related to her recruitment status. The tribunal concluded that viewed objectively in all the circumstances, it was not reasonable to view the conduct as having any of the proscribed effects under s.26 Equality Act 2010. The claimant was being supported, accommodated, and offered alternatives including redeployment.