Claimant v Metropolitan Police Service

The tribunal found that DS Lester's refusal to give permission to attend the World Mental Health Seminar on 27 September 2019 was not harassment related to race. The tribunal unanimously concluded this action did not meet the statutory test under s.26 Equality Act 2010.

The tribunal found that DS Lester's issuance of words of advice to the claimant for not updating IAMS logs on 7 November 2019 was not harassment related to race. This was a management action that did not constitute unwanted conduct related to the protected characteristic.

The tribunal found that DS Lester's refusal to allow the claimant to carry out exercise as recommended by Occupational Health on 12 November 2019 was not harassment related to race and was not unwanted conduct having the purpose or effect of violating dignity.

The tribunal found that DS Lester's request for the claimant to supply a hospital letter on 19 November 2019 to confirm an appointment at St Mary's Hospital, Sidcup was a reasonable management action and not harassment related to race.

The tribunal found that DS Lester's refusal to allow the claimant to go home early on 29 November 2019, the day of the London Bridge Attacks, was not harassment related to race but a legitimate operational decision during a major incident.

Dismissed upon withdrawal as a duplicate of the claim regarding words of advice issued on 7 November 2019.

The tribunal found that DI Knight informing the claimant on 9 December 2019 that his complaint about DS Lester would not be investigated was not harassment related to race but a legitimate management decision regarding complaint handling.

The tribunal found that subjecting the claimant to a DPS investigation for misconduct regarding failure to store or update IAMS logs in November 2019 was not harassment related to race but a legitimate disciplinary process following identified performance issues.

The tribunal found that delays in the DPS investigation between 18 January 2020 and 23 January 2021 were not harassment related to race. While regrettable, delays were not motivated by or related to the claimant's race.

The tribunal found that placing the claimant on restricted duties during the DPS investigation from 18 January 2020 to 4 May 2022 was not harassment related to race but standard practice during misconduct investigations.

The tribunal found that issuing the claimant with a written improvement notice on 7 March 2022 under the Unsatisfactory Performance for Police Officers Process was not harassment related to race but a legitimate performance management action.

The tribunal found that DS Lester's refusal to give permission to attend the World Mental Health Seminar on 27 September 2019 was not less favourable treatment because of race. The claimant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The tribunal found that DS Lester's issuance of words of advice for not updating IAMS logs on 7 November 2019 was not less favourable treatment because of race but appropriate management action in response to performance concerns.

The tribunal found that DS Lester's refusal to allow exercise as recommended by Occupational Health on 12 November 2019 was not less favourable treatment because of race. The claimant did not prove this was race-related.

The tribunal found that DS Lester's request for a hospital letter on 19 November 2019 was not less favourable treatment because of race but a reasonable request to verify a medical appointment.

The tribunal found that DS Lester's refusal to allow the claimant to go home early on 29 November 2019 during the London Bridge Attacks was not less favourable treatment because of race but an operational decision during a major security incident.

Dismissed upon withdrawal as a duplicate of the claim regarding words of advice issued on 7 November 2019.

The tribunal found that DI Knight's decision on 9 December 2019 not to investigate the claimant's complaint was not less favourable treatment because of race but a decision made on the merits of the complaint.

The tribunal found that subjecting the claimant to a DPS investigation for misconduct in November 2019 was not less favourable treatment because of race but action taken in response to legitimate performance concerns about IAMS log management.

The tribunal found that delays in the DPS investigation between 18 January 2020 and 23 January 2021 were not less favourable treatment because of race and were not shown to be race-related.

The tribunal found that placing the claimant on restricted duties during the DPS investigation from 18 January 2020 to 4 May 2022 was not less favourable treatment because of race but standard operational practice during investigations.

The tribunal found that issuing the claimant with a written improvement notice on 7 March 2022 was not less favourable treatment because of race but a legitimate response to identified performance issues regarding IAMS case management logs.

The tribunal found that DS Lester's refusal to give permission to attend the World Mental Health Seminar on 27 September 2019 was not victimisation. The claimant failed to establish he had done a protected act or that the treatment was because of such an act.

The tribunal found that DS Lester's issuance of words of advice for not updating IAMS logs on 7 November 2019 was not victimisation but management action unconnected to any protected act.

The tribunal found that DS Lester's refusal to allow exercise as recommended by Occupational Health on 12 November 2019 was not victimisation and was not because the claimant had done a protected act.

The tribunal found that DS Lester's request for a hospital letter on 19 November 2019 was not victimisation but a reasonable request unrelated to any protected act by the claimant.

The tribunal found that DS Lester's refusal to allow the claimant to go home early on 29 November 2019 was not victimisation but an operational decision during a major incident unrelated to any protected act.

Dismissed upon withdrawal as a duplicate of the claim regarding words of advice issued on 7 November 2019.

The tribunal found that DI Knight's decision on 9 December 2019 not to investigate the complaint was not victimisation and was not because the claimant had done a protected act.

The tribunal found that subjecting the claimant to a DPS investigation in November 2019 was not victimisation but action taken in response to performance concerns, not because of any protected act.

The tribunal found that delays in the DPS investigation between 18 January 2020 and 23 January 2021 were not victimisation and were not shown to be because of any protected act.

The tribunal found that placing the claimant on restricted duties during the DPS investigation from 18 January 2020 to 4 May 2022 was not victimisation but standard practice during investigations, not because of any protected act.

The tribunal found that issuing the claimant with a written improvement notice on 7 March 2022 was not victimisation but a legitimate performance management action unrelated to any protected act by the claimant.