Claimant v Metropolitan Police Service
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal found that many of the alleged incidents did not occur as described. Where incidents did occur, the Claimant failed to establish any evidence that treatment was because of race or that he was treated less favourably than a comparator. The Respondent provided non-discriminatory reasons for all treatment, primarily the Claimant's performance and conduct issues.
The single incident relied upon (PS Kovler mimicking the Claimant's African accent on 23 December 2022) was found by the Tribunal not to have occurred.
The Claimant lacked jurisdiction to bring an unfair dismissal claim as a police officer office holder under s.200 ERA 1996. Even if jurisdiction existed, the Tribunal found no repudiatory breach of contract and that the Claimant resigned to avoid a disciplinary process regarding unauthorised Uber driving, not in response to any breach by the Respondent.
The Claimant's claim under s.10 Employment Relations Act 1999 for denial of the right to be accompanied failed. The meetings on 18 October and 29 November 2023 were not disciplinary or grievance hearings to which the right applied. The Claimant also lacked jurisdiction as a police officer office holder who is not a 'worker' under the Act.
Facts
The Claimant, a Black African Police Constable with the Metropolitan Police from February 2020 to November 2023, brought claims of race discrimination, harassment, constructive unfair dismissal and denial of the right to be accompanied. The claims arose from performance management incidents in December 2022 following errors in case handling, a traffic accident in October 2023 where he was driving for Uber without authorisation, and subsequent fact-finding meetings. The Claimant resigned on 24 October 2023, giving notice to 29 November 2023, during an investigation into unauthorised external business interests.
Decision
The Tribunal dismissed all claims. Key factual allegations (including accent mimicking and deliberate sabotage) were found not to have occurred. Where incidents did occur, the Tribunal found they were due to the Claimant's performance and conduct issues, not race. The Claimant lacked jurisdiction for unfair dismissal and right to be accompanied claims as a police officer office holder. The Tribunal was critical of the Claimant's credibility, noting he introduced serious new allegations during the hearing without evidence and failed to provide comparative evidence to support discrimination claims.
Practical note
Police officers as office holders have limited employment rights and cannot bring ordinary unfair dismissal claims; even where institutional discrimination is a recognised issue within an organisation, individual claimants must provide specific evidence linking their treatment to a protected characteristic rather than relying on negative experiences alone.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2206280/2023
- Decision date
- 19 March 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 7
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- emergency services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Police Constable
- Service
- 4 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No