Cases2202757/2022

Claimant v Metropolitan Police Service

24 April 2024Before Employment Judge SinghLondon Centralhybrid

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)failed

The tribunal found that the alleged acts of unfavourable treatment (shouting, calling the claimant a liar, threatening disciplinary action) did not occur as alleged. The tribunal found Inspector McManus credible and concluded she had not shouted or called the claimant a liar, and that Reflective Practice was not a disciplinary process. Further, even if the acts had occurred, they were not because of something arising from disability: the claimant was off work due to COVID symptoms, not his back injury, and Inspector McManus's concern was the failure to notify her of absence, not the reason for the absence itself.

Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments(disability)failed

The tribunal found that several alleged PCPs either did not exist as formulated, or did not place the claimant at a substantial disadvantage. For the Charing Cross incident, the instruction did not include a promise of assistance, so there was no PCP as alleged. For both Charing Cross and Belgravia, the tribunal found that instructions were limited to basic tasks within the claimant's capacity and required dynamic risk assessment; any injury resulted from the claimant exceeding those instructions. For the laptop/tablet claim, there was no medical evidence of substantial disadvantage until a July 2023 report, which post-dated the claims and after which a laptop was provided within 15 days.

Victimisationfailed

The tribunal accepted that the claimant did a protected act by notifying the respondent of his intention to bring a tribunal claim in May 2022. However, the alleged detriments did not occur. The tribunal found the claimant had not been instructed not to speak to PS Reid, but rather there had been a discussion about whether Reid was suitable as a Welfare Officer due to a potential conflict. The tribunal also found the claimant was not without a line manager between August 2022 and March 2023: PS Reid remained his line manager throughout this period, and Augustine Anyaegbuna acted as a second line manager. Email evidence confirmed the claimant continued to treat Reid as his line manager.

Facts

The claimant, a police officer with NANO (restricted duties) status due to a back condition, brought claims spanning June 2020 to March 2023. He alleged he was required to carry out tasks beyond his physical capacity (clearing bunkers at Charing Cross and Belgravia stations, searching motorcycles), was subjected to unfavourable treatment by Inspector McManus in December 2021 after failing to attend a duty, was not provided with a larger tablet/laptop between March 2021 and January 2023, and after notifying his employer of his intention to bring a tribunal claim in May 2022, was told not to speak to his line manager and left without a line manager until March 2023.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found the alleged acts of unfavourable treatment by Inspector McManus did not occur as alleged, and that the claimant's absence was due to COVID symptoms, not his disability. The tribunal found that instructions to clear bunkers and stations were limited to basic tasks within the claimant's capacity and required dynamic risk assessment; any injury resulted from the claimant exceeding those instructions. There was no medical evidence supporting the need for a larger device until July 2023, after which one was provided. The alleged victimisation detriments did not occur: the claimant was not instructed to avoid his line manager and was not left without one.

Practical note

Employment lawyers should note that police officers with restricted duties remain bound by the requirement to conduct dynamic risk assessments and work within their capacity; if they exceed clear instructions and injure themselves, this will not constitute a substantial disadvantage arising from a PCP, and employers must have contemporaneous medical evidence establishing substantial disadvantage for auxiliary aid claims to succeed.

Legal authorities cited

Environment Agency v Rowan [2008] ICR 218Romec Ltd v Rudham [2007] UKEAT 0069/07/1307Royal Bank of Scotland v Ashton [2011] ICR 632Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Alam 2010 ICR 665Project Management Institute v Latif [2007] IRLR 579Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police v Khan [2001] IRLR 830St Helen's Metropolitan Borough Council v Derbyshire [2007] IRLR 540R (on the application of E) v Governing Body of JFS and Others [2010] IRLR 136Martin v Devonshires Solicitors EAT0086/10Owen and Briggs v James [1982] IRLR 502O'Donoghue v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council [2001] IRLR 615South London Healthcare NHS Trust v Al-Rubeyi EAT0269/09Nagarajan v London Regional Transport [2000] 1 AC 501Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] ICR 337Secretary of State for Justice v Dunn EAT 0234/16

Statutes

EqA 2010 s.21EqA 2010 s.27EqA 2010 s.123EqA 2010 Sch 8 para 20EqA 2010 s.15EqA 2010 s.20

Case details

Case number
2202757/2022
Decision date
24 April 2024
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
10
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
emergency services
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Police Officer
Service
22 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No