Claimant v Metropolitan Police Service
Outcome
Individual claims
Claims relating to arrest on 8 August 2023 and work restrictions following arrest were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success because they arose wholly outside the employment relationship, with the respondent acting as a law enforcement agency not as employer, and thus outside tribunal jurisdiction. Claims relating to 2014 incidents were struck out as no reasonable prospect of establishing conduct extending over a period or just and equitable time extension given seven year gap, no common individuals, and significantly different circumstances.
Claims relating to 2014 incidents struck out for same reasons as direct discrimination claims. Claims relating to PS Layton calling claimant 'childish' on 6 July 2023 and failure to investigate, and comments at 2 November 2023 meeting, were allowed to proceed. Tribunal found reasonable prospect of establishing conduct extending over a period and/or just and equitable time extension. Deposit order application refused as more than little prospect of claimant succeeding at final hearing.
Claims relating to exclusion from nightclub in July 2014 because claimant was gay were struck out as no reasonable prospect of establishing conduct extending over a period to 2023 incidents (seven year gap, different individuals, different circumstances) or just and equitable time extension (claimant clearly felt discriminated against at the time and publicly raised concerns but gave no explanation for nine year delay in bringing claim).
Facts
The claimant, a Band D executive officer employed by the Metropolitan Police since 2004, brought claims of disability discrimination, harassment, and sexual orientation discrimination. The claims related to incidents in 2014 (exclusion from nightclub for being gay), his arrest on 8 August 2023 for alleged domestic abuse, and workplace incidents between July and November 2023 including being called 'childish' by PS Layton when he said emails affected his mental health, alleged failure to investigate his complaint, and comments made by his line manager at a case conference. The respondent applied to strike out various claims as out of time and having no reasonable prospects of success, and for a deposit order.
Decision
The tribunal struck out claims relating to the claimant's arrest and bail conditions as they arose outside the employment relationship with the respondent acting as law enforcement agency not employer. Claims relating to 2014 incidents were struck out as no reasonable prospect of establishing conduct extending over a period or just and equitable time extension given the seven-year gap. Claims relating to workplace incidents in July-November 2023 were allowed to proceed as there was reasonable prospect they formed conduct extending over a period. The deposit order application was refused.
Practical note
Claims against a police force arising from arrest and criminal investigation fall outside employment tribunal jurisdiction even where the claimant is an employee of that force, as the employer was acting in its law enforcement capacity not as employer.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3200394/2024
- Decision date
- 10 April 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- emergency services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Band D executive officer
- Service
- 21 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No