Claimant v Metropolitan Police Service
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found no evidence that the decisions relating to acting up processes, recruitment panels, role allocations, or management actions were influenced by the Claimant's race. The Respondent provided cogent, non-discriminatory explanations for all actions, including recruitment scoring, role offers, and management communications. The tribunal concluded the burden of proof did not shift to the Respondent in most allegations, and where it did, the Respondent successfully rebutted any inference of discrimination.
The tribunal accepted the Claimant had done protected acts (complaints at meetings with senior officers and grievances). However, the tribunal found no evidence that subsequent decisions—such as recruitment outcomes, role offers, delays in correspondence, or decisions not to pursue misconduct investigations—were causally linked to those protected acts. The tribunal found the Respondent's explanations credible and concluded the Claimant was not subjected to detriments because of his protected acts.
The harassment claim was withdrawn by the Claimant during the proceedings and was not pursued at the hearing.
Facts
The Claimant, an Asian male Police Constable, became a Sergeant in 2020. He alleged race discrimination and victimisation in numerous acting up processes, recruitment decisions, and management actions within the Metropolitan Police East Area BCU. The Respondent had introduced a formal acting up process in 2021 following concerns raised by ethnic minority officers. The Claimant participated in meetings with senior officers where discrimination was discussed. He applied for acting Inspector roles multiple times between 2021 and 2024. He alleged discrimination in scoring, role allocation, delays, and management communications.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims of direct race discrimination and victimisation. It found the Respondent provided credible, non-discriminatory explanations for all challenged decisions. The tribunal concluded the Claimant had not established less favourable treatment because of race, nor detriments because of protected acts. Several allegations in claim three were dismissed as out of time, with the tribunal declining to extend time on a just and equitable basis.
Practical note
An employment lawyer would learn that even in the context of acknowledged institutional racism and a claimant's multiple protected acts, tribunals require cogent evidence linking specific decisions to race or protected acts—credible operational explanations and fair processes will defeat discrimination claims.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3200501/2023
- Decision date
- 24 October 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 14
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- emergency services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Police Constable
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister