Claimant v Metropolitan Police Service

The tribunal found that reasonable adjustments had been made: the claimant's probation was extended multiple times, he was assigned to non-operational MIST duties when unfit, and driving duties were severely restricted when he requested. The tribunal found no breach of duty to make reasonable adjustments as the respondent acted reasonably and appropriately throughout.

The tribunal found that while disability-related absence was a factor, the principal reasons for dismissal were conduct and integrity issues unrelated to disability (two driving misconduct incidents, making unfounded allegations against other officers). The tribunal found dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims of ensuring adequate attendance and maintaining conduct standards.

The tribunal found that Inspector Branford's comments about the claimant's back injury and absence, while unwelcome, were factual and made in the context of legitimate operational needs. It was not reasonable for the comments to have the effect of harassment. Likewise, the fast-track regulation 13 procedure was instigated due to misconduct, not disability, and was a legitimate procedure.

The tribunal found Inspector Branford's comment that PC Persaud was 22 years old and had no reason to lie was used as shorthand for her being a new officer with no motive to jeopardise her career by making malicious allegations. The reference to age was not harassment and it was not reasonable for it to have that effect in context.

The tribunal found no evidence that the claimant's age or PC Persaud's age influenced the decision to believe her account of the second driving incident. Inspector Branford based his belief on the overwhelming evidence including the vehicle's instant data recorder showing use of blue lights, which the claimant admitted.

The tribunal found that the fast-track regulation 13 procedure and recommendation for dismissal were not because of the claimant's protected acts (grievances dated 2 August and 16 August 2023). Inspector Branford's actions were motivated by multiple misconduct issues, not the grievances. Inspector Branford's comments about jeopardising careers of Sgt Riley and PC Persaud were factual observations about the serious nature of the claimant's unfounded allegations, not victimisation.

Withdrawn by claimant and dismissed by the tribunal.