Claimant v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police

The tribunal found that while the PCPs did put the claimant at a disadvantage by subjecting her to a formal Stage 1 process and written improvement notice, the respondent demonstrated the means used were proportionate to achieve the legitimate aims of managing sickness absence, maintaining an efficient police service, and maintaining public confidence. The claimant had considerable sickness absence (162 days in 365 days) and a Bradford Score exceeding 700. The decision not to link absences six months apart was not irrational given the claimant had returned to work early, worked substantial overtime, and showed no symptoms to managers for six months.

The tribunal found that commencing a Stage 1 formal absence management procedure and issuing a written improvement notice did amount to unfavourable treatment arising from the claimant's disability-related absence. However, the respondent justified this treatment as a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims for the same reasons given in the indirect discrimination claim. The second complaint regarding requiring the claimant to take TOIL or leave for a hospital appointment on 2 January 2024 failed on the facts, as the tribunal found the claimant chose to take annual leave rather than clarifying the nature of the appointment when asked.

The tribunal found the duty to make reasonable adjustments was triggered as the PCPs placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage. However, none of the proposed adjustments were found to be reasonable: (1) linking all future disability-related absences automatically and without limitation was not reasonable as it would make absence difficult to manage; (2) working from home as required was already in place and the claimant already worked from home; (3) additional breaks would not have ameliorated the disadvantage caused by the PCPs, and regular breaks were already permitted; (4) attending medical appointments without TOIL or leave would not have removed the disadvantage, and the claimant could attend appointments on rest days.

The tribunal accepted the content of emails from Inspector Williams on 19 December 2023 was unwanted and related to disability after the claimant indicated her bladder issues arose from her hysterectomy. However, the claim failed because: (1) there was no evidence the conduct had the effect of violating dignity or creating the requisite statutory environment, a point conceded by the claimant's counsel; and (2) even if there had been such evidence, it would not have been reasonable for the conduct to have had that effect in the circumstances, as it was not unreasonable for the inspector to ask for clarification that the appointment was disability-related and could not be arranged on a rest day.