Cases3300531/2024

Claimant v Police Federation of England and Wales

5 February 2025Before Employment Judge EmeryWatfordremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)struck out

The tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success as the claimant's dismissal was not a consequence or effect of her disability itself. While she argued she was dismissed because of disability, dismissal is a separate event not arising from disability, and the causal link required under s.15 Equality Act 2010 was not established.

Victimisationstruck out

The claim had no reasonable prospect of success because the respondent's policy of withholding legal advice applied universally, not because of any protected act. The respondent was highly likely to show it withheld advice under its general policy to avoid challenges based on legal professional privilege, not because the claimant raised a protected act.

Otherstruck out

The claim under s.111A Equality Act (aiding a contravention) had no reasonable prospect because the respondent's policy applied universally and the claimant could not establish that the third-party solicitor withheld advice due to a protected act rather than following the respondent's standard policy.

Breach of Contractstruck out

The tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear this claim. Employment tribunal contract jurisdiction under s.3 Employment Tribunals Act 1996 only extends to contracts with the employer. The respondent was not the claimant's employer and had insufficient connection to be treated as such, following Oni v UNISON.

Facts

The claimant, a former Metropolitan Police officer, brought claims against the Police Federation relating to its refusal to provide legal assistance and withholding of legal advice obtained in assessing her case. She alleged this was disability discrimination arising from disability, victimisation for raising protected acts, that the respondent aided contraventions of the Equality Act, and breach of contract. The respondent had a universal policy of not sharing legal advice with members due to legal professional privilege concerns.

Decision

All claims were struck out. The tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success for the discrimination and victimisation claims because the respondent applied its universal policy of withholding legal advice, not because of disability or protected acts. The s.15 claim failed because dismissal was not a consequence or effect of disability itself. The breach of contract claim was struck out for lack of jurisdiction as the respondent was not the employer.

Practical note

A union's universal policy of withholding legal advice from members will defeat victimisation claims where the policy is applied consistently regardless of protected acts, and dismissal itself is not 'something arising from disability' under s.15 Equality Act 2010.

Legal authorities cited

Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2003] ICR 318Selkent Bus Co Ltd t/a Stagecoach Selkent v Moore [1996] IRLR 661iForce Ltd v Wood UKEAT/0167/18Risby v London Borough of Waltham Forest UKEAT/0318/15Pnaiser v NHS England [2016] IRLR 170Oni v UNISON Trade Union UKEAT/0092/17

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.56AEquality Act 2010 s.57(5)Equality Act 2010 s.111AEmployment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 Rule 37(1)(a)Employment Tribunals Act 1996 s.3Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 Rule 38Equality Act 2010 s.15Equality Act 2010 s.27

Case details

Case number
3300531/2024
Decision date
5 February 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
public sector
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
No