Claimant v Metropolitan Police Service
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant did not establish that she suffered detriments as a result of making protected disclosures. The claims for whistleblowing detriments were not upheld.
The tribunal concluded that the claimant had not established a fundamental breach of contract by the respondent sufficient to justify her resignation, and therefore the claim for constructive unfair dismissal was not upheld.
The tribunal found that the claimant did not prove she was treated less favourably because of her sex. The claim for direct sex discrimination was not upheld.
The tribunal found that the claimant did not establish she was treated less favourably because of her disability. The claim for direct disability discrimination was not upheld.
The tribunal determined that the conduct complained of did not constitute unwanted conduct related to sex that had the requisite effect. The harassment related to sex claim was not upheld.
The tribunal determined that the conduct complained of did not constitute unwanted conduct related to disability that had the requisite effect. The harassment related to disability claim was not upheld.
The tribunal found that the claimant did not establish that she was treated unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of her disability. The discrimination arising out of disability claims were not upheld.
Facts
Mary Bolton brought claims against the Metropolitan Police alleging whistleblowing detriments, constructive dismissal, and various forms of discrimination based on sex and disability. The case was heard over 10 days at London Central Employment Tribunal, with both parties represented by counsel. The claimant's employment with the Metropolitan Police ended in circumstances she claimed amounted to constructive dismissal.
Decision
Employment Judge Webster dismissed all of the claimant's claims. The tribunal found that the claimant had not established that she suffered detriments for whistleblowing, that there was no fundamental breach justifying constructive dismissal, and that the discrimination and harassment claims on grounds of sex and disability were not made out.
Practical note
A claimant must establish clear evidential links between alleged protected disclosures and detriments, prove fundamental breach for constructive dismissal, and demonstrate causation in discrimination claims; mere allegations without sufficient proof will result in dismissal of all claims.
Case details
- Case number
- 2216967/2023
- Decision date
- 7 February 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 10
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- emergency services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister