Claimant v Metropolitan Police Service
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal rejected all allegations of direct race discrimination. No evidence that treatment was on grounds of race. Burden of proof did not shift.
Tribunal rejected all allegations of direct disability discrimination. No evidence that treatment was because of disability. Burden of proof did not shift.
Where something arose from disability, tribunal found respondent had justification and treatment was proportionate legitimate means. Many allegations did not arise from disability at all.
Tribunal found no PCPs applied which placed claimant at substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled persons, or where adjustments proposed would not have been reasonable.
Tribunal found no conduct capable of constituting harassment on grounds of race. Claimant's subjective perception did not meet objective test.
Tribunal found no conduct capable of constituting harassment on grounds of disability. Claimant's subjective perception did not meet objective test.
Claimant withdrew alleged protected act number 1. Tribunal found no causal connection between remaining protected acts and alleged detriments.
Tribunal found no detriment on account of making protected disclosures. No evidence respondent was materially influenced by protected disclosures.
Facts
Claimant was a police officer employed by the Metropolitan Police from 1993 to June 2023. He brought approximately 271 separate allegations spanning several years, primarily arising from his 2017 move from Ports Duty Supervisor role to Terminal 2, which he perceived as discriminatory. He relied on disabilities including anxiety (from 2017), bronchiectasis (2017), knee injury (2020), and Sjogren's Syndrome (2021). From 2020 he worked predominantly from home due to Covid vulnerability and recuperative duties. He alleged a continuing course of discriminatory conduct, victimisation, and whistleblowing detriment by multiple line managers.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found no evidence that the claimant's treatment was on grounds of race or disability, that he was victimised for protected acts, or subjected to detriment for whistleblowing. Where something arose from disability, the respondent had justification. The tribunal found the claimant had unrealistic expectations of line managers, perceived harassment where none objectively existed, and from around 2018 focused on creating evidence for legal claims rather than career progression. Some allegations withdrawn; some struck out as out of time (pre-October 2019).
Practical note
A claimant's subjective perception of harassment and discrimination, however genuinely held, will not succeed without objective evidence supporting the claims; relying on 271 largely unmeritorious allegations across multiple legal grounds is counterproductive and may indicate a mindset focused on grievance rather than resolution.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2201372/2022
- Decision date
- 27 February 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 29
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- emergency services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Police Officer
- Service
- 30 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No