Claimant v Metropolitan Police Service
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant withdrew the claim for ordinary unfair dismissal under section 94 ERA 1996 as she is an office holder (police officer) and is excluded by section 200 ERA. Any dismissal claim proceeds under section 39 Equality Act 2010 instead.
Respondent's strike-out application for allegations 45(a) and 45(e) (disproportionate pursuit following Kenya trip and informing offender manager; pressuring claimant to accept caution) was refused. Judge found these were borderline cases where it is arguable the detriments were suffered in the employment field, as they may have formed part of a campaign to dismiss her. This requires determination at full hearing.
Respondent's strike-out application for allegations 45(a) and 45(e) was refused for the same reasons as the race discrimination claim. The tribunal found it is more than merely fanciful to argue the detriments were suffered as an employee given the alleged context and campaign to dismiss.
Claimant alleges disproportionate pursuit following Kenya trip notification errors, failure to pay back pay from June 2021, additional notification requirements from August 2021, constructive dismissal on 30 March 2024, and pressure to accept caution. Strike-out application for allegations (a) and (e) refused as borderline cases requiring full hearing.
Same allegations as race discrimination claim. Claimant alleges treatment was discriminatory compared to white male officers who would not have faced the same treatment for more serious misconduct. Requires determination at full hearing.
Claimant pleads victimisation under section 27 Equality Act in relation to the same allegations as direct discrimination claims. Not yet determined at this preliminary hearing.
Claimant alleges constructive dismissal pursuant to section 39(7)(b) Equality Act on 30 March 2024 (allegation 45(d)). This remains to be determined at the final hearing scheduled for July 2025.
Facts
Ms Williams, a Black female police officer convicted in 2019 and subject to notification requirements, was reinstated following a Police Appeals Tribunal decision. She was subsequently charged with failing to comply with notification requirements after a trip to Kenya in December 2022. She alleges the Respondent disproportionately pursued her and pressured her to accept a caution as part of a campaign to dismiss her based on race and/or sex. She claims white male officers would not have faced similar treatment. She resigned on 30 March 2024 alleging constructive dismissal.
Decision
The tribunal refused the Respondent's application to strike out two allegations of race/sex discrimination (disproportionate pursuit and pressure to accept caution). Judge Mellor found these were borderline cases where it is arguable the detriments were suffered in the employment field, forming part of a campaign to dismiss the claimant. The tribunal also dismissed the ordinary unfair dismissal claim upon withdrawal, as police officers are office holders excluded by s.200 ERA 1996.
Practical note
When determining jurisdiction over discrimination claims involving police conduct towards an officer, the boundaries between employment field and criminal investigation functions are not always clear-cut and may require full evidential hearing where allegations suggest the conduct was motivated by employment-related discrimination rather than purely criminal investigation duties.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2205639/2020
- Decision date
- 10 January 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- emergency services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Police Officer
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister