Claimant v Metropolitan Police Service
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant withdrew his unfair dismissal claim because he was not eligible to claim as a Police Officer.
The claim under s15 (discrimination arising from disability) failed because the treatment complained of - not being offered ill health retirement - was a benefit only available to disabled persons, following the reasoning in Williams v Swansea. Additionally, even if the treatment was unfavourable, it was justified as a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims of managing resources and filling an operational role, given the absence of notable fresh evidence, the claimant had not completed the recommended pain management course, and the process would have taken approximately another year with uncertain outcome.
The tribunal found that ill health retirement or re-referral for ill health retirement could not be a reasonable adjustment. Following the case law in Tameside Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v Mylott, reasonable adjustments are steps to enable an employee to remain in employment, and do not extend to compensation for being unable to work, including failure to consider ill health retirement.
Facts
The claimant, a Police Constable since 2007, suffered chronic pain syndrome with migraines following a 2008 road traffic collision. He had been unable to work consistently and was last operational in 2015, with his final working day on 26 April 2021. After extensive absence management procedures, the respondent referred him for ill health retirement assessment. The Selected Medical Practitioner and, on appeal, the Police Medical Appeal Board concluded he was not permanently disabled, finding that with appropriate pain management interventions (particularly a pain management programme) he could return to duties before retirement age at 60. He was dismissed at a UPP3 hearing on 5 April 2024 after the panel concluded there was insufficient fresh medical evidence to warrant re-referral for ill health retirement.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed both claims. The s15 discrimination claim failed because not being offered ill health retirement was a benefit only available to disabled persons (applying Williams v Swansea), and in any event the dismissal was justified as proportionate given the lack of notable fresh evidence, the claimant's failure to complete the recommended pain management course, and operational needs. The reasonable adjustments claim failed because case law establishes that reasonable adjustments are steps to enable continued employment, not compensation or benefits for inability to work.
Practical note
Ill health retirement cannot be characterised as a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act 2010, as adjustments must enable continued employment rather than provide benefits for ceasing employment.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6011617/2024
- Decision date
- 22 August 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- emergency services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Police Constable
- Service
- 17 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No