Claimant v Chief Constable of Cumbria Constabulary

The tribunal found the claimant failed to establish group disadvantage on the evidence before it. The tribunal could not take judicial notice that officers with complex PTSD would be put at a particular disadvantage by the agreed PCPs without direct evidence, given that PTSD can manifest in many different ways. As group disadvantage was not established, the claim failed at this threshold stage.

Two failures to make reasonable adjustments were found: (1) Failing to ensure the claimant did not attend deaths or RTCs whilst in response role between 26 May to 28 June 2021 (when she was sent to Kendal and asked to escort a body) — this claim was struck out as over 2 years out of time and tribunal refused to extend time; (2) Failing to offer the claimant the permanent METCO role once funding was approved on 11 August 2023, during her notice period, until her termination on 11 September 2023 — this succeeded. The tribunal found it unreasonable that the respondent did not offer her this role once it became available given acute awareness of her desire to remain in METCO.

Three allegations considered: (1) Inspector Hadwin's comment that claimant's mental health was not her sergeant's problem — found to have been said but was badly-phrased explanation, not objectively reasonable to have required effect; (2) Decision in April 2023 to move claimant back to response and manner of delivery — tribunal found no clear decision had been made, only that METCO funding ended, and while poorly managed, did not meet harassment test; (3) Manner of conducting 6 June 2023 meeting — while Miss Parker should have offered a break given claimant was crying, and failure to do so was unwanted conduct, the conduct did not sufficiently relate to disability (disability was background not central feature) and did not have the required effect.

The constructive discriminatory dismissal claim was parasitic upon the free-standing discrimination claims. The tribunal found the resignation on 10 August 2023 could not have been in consequence of the failure to make reasonable adjustments during 26 May to 28 June 2021 (over 2 years earlier) nor the failure during 11 August to 11 September 2023 (which occurred after the resignation). The claim therefore failed.