Claimant v The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland

Tribunal found that the decision on 6 March 2024 by GR to permanently withdraw firearms authorisation was directly related to claimants' sex. GR made a knee-jerk reaction to media coverage of male officers in the context of previous discrimination findings in the firearms unit. He subjectively viewed the claimants' conduct as inappropriate because they were male officers photographed with a female celebrity, despite there being nothing sexist or misogynistic in their actual conduct. The decision was a disproportionate attempt to make an example of male officers.

The insistence by GR on or around 25 October 2024 that claimants transfer out of OSD amounted to direct discrimination. GR refused to reconsider his earlier discriminatory decision and made no effort to explore roles in OSD despite BS's grievance outcome directing him to do so. He instructed claimants not to include OSD roles in their preference forms. This was inextricably linked to their sex and his determination to make an example of them as male officers.

The meeting on 8 March 2024 where Sergeant Waugh and AM communicated the decision to claimants was not discriminatory. The meeting was required to inform them of the decision already taken; it was not called because of their sex. Line managers were simply implementing a decision, not aiding in discrimination. Female officers would have been treated the same in being informed of such a decision.

BS's decision on 2 October 2024 not to uphold the claimants' grievance did not amount to direct discrimination. While BS agreed with GR's discriminatory decision, there was no evidence that a female officer bringing a similar grievance would have had it upheld. Agreeing with a discriminatory decision is distinct from making the original discriminatory decision.

Being summoned to the meeting on 4 March 2024 and being chastised did not amount to harassment related to sex. AM did not accuse claimants of misogynistic behaviour but expressed concern about how senior management would perceive their conduct. While the meeting was unwanted and uncomfortable, nothing said or done was related to the claimants' sex. The requirement to attend and the content of the meeting would have been the same regardless of sex.

The failure to follow suspended authority process on 8 March 2024 was viewed by the Tribunal as a fact from which inference of discrimination could be drawn, rather than free-standing harassment. It did not constitute unwanted conduct related to sex meeting the section 26 EqA criteria.

The decision on 6 March 2024 to permanently withdraw firearms authorisation was properly categorised as direct discrimination rather than harassment under section 26 EqA. The conduct was an act of less favourable treatment because of sex, not unwanted conduct related to sex.

GR's decision on 2 October 2024 regarding refusal to accept grievance findings was properly categorised as direct discrimination rather than harassment. This was an act of continuing discrimination rather than unwanted conduct creating a hostile environment under section 26.

BS's statements agreeing with GR's rationale, while unwelcome to the claimants, did not amount to harassment. The language used in the grievance outcome was not sufficient to constitute unwanted conduct related to sex that violated dignity or created a hostile environment under section 26 EqA, applying Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust principles.

The joining of the second grievance to the grievance appeal and having both heard by AS did not amount to victimisation. While it was accepted this was a detriment, there was no evidence the decision was related to the protected act of complaining about discrimination. The decision was taken because it was thought the most appropriate way to proceed, not because claimants had raised discrimination complaints.