Claimant v Metropolitan Police Service

Claimant withdrew this claim at the start of the hearing.

Claimant withdrew this claim at the start of the hearing.

The Tribunal found the respondent had a PCP of requiring attendance at the office which placed the claimant at substantial disadvantage due to his Multiple Sclerosis (fatigue, mobility issues, toilet needs, weakened immune system). However, the Tribunal concluded that the respondent had taken reasonable steps by allowing short-term extensions of home working throughout the period in question, and that agreeing to open-ended indefinite home working would not have been reasonable given legitimate concerns about supervision and welfare, particularly given the claimant's contact with victims of crime and trauma.

The Tribunal considered six separate allegations of harassment spanning from January 2023 to February 2024 (including statements about OH advice, refusals to refer to OH, statements about MPS policy on home working, suggestion of ill health retirement, and a comment about a meeting proceeding in the claimant's absence when hospitalised). The Tribunal found that while some conduct was unwanted, none was related to disability on a causative or associative basis — the actions arose from the respondent's interpretation of OH advice, its policies, and operational decisions. Even if related to disability, the Tribunal found the conduct did not have the purpose or effect of violating dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment, as the conduct was reasonable in the circumstances and part of an ongoing dialogue about adjustments.