Claimant v The Chief Constable of Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary

The claimant withdrew allegations numbered 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.1.4, 4.1.5, 4.1.6, 4.1.7 and 4.1.10 at the start of the hearing. The remaining direct disability discrimination complaints all failed. The tribunal found that the claimant was seeking to criticise events based on his current perspective rather than what happened at the time, and there was no evidence that less favourable treatment occurred because of disability.

The claimant withdrew allegations numbered 6.6 and 6.7. Of the remaining claims, the tribunal found that some complaints were proven as arising from disability (e.g. sickness absence management) but were justified as proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims. The tribunal found that the respondent used discretion to keep sickness absence processes informal and adjusted trigger points, which were proportionate responses.

The claim focused on the promotion process. The tribunal found that the claimant had not proven a relevant group disadvantage as required for indirect discrimination. The tribunal accepted that PCPs existed (as determined at Stage 1) but the claimant failed to establish that persons sharing his disabilities were put at particular disadvantage compared to those without.

The claimant withdrew allegations numbered 14.2, 14.3 and 14.4. For the remaining claims, the tribunal found no failure in the duty based on what the respondent knew and did at the relevant time. The tribunal found the claimant had not proven substantial disadvantage for various PCPs, particularly regarding the psychiatric assistance dog (Koda did not meet the definition required) and the grievance investigation process (which was a one-off specific issue).

The tribunal found that the alleged conduct either did not occur, or where it did occur, it did not have the purpose or effect of violating the claimant's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The tribunal found passages in supervision notes did not relate to anxiety and depression as alleged, and evidence did not support the claimant being sidelined or demeaned.