Mr T Jeynes v The Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Constabulary — 2021

Mr Jeynes, a serving Gloucestershire police officer, relied on five disabilities accepted by the respondent: dyslexia, knee and hip injury, lymphoedema, sero-negative inflammatory arthritis, and mechanical back pain from a prolapsed disc. After a 2017 settlement of an earlier tribunal claim, the parties agreed an ETDP that formalised reasonable adjustments including a specialist chair, a variable-height desk, use of the Force Medical Room for physiotherapy, and the possibility of acting-up opportunities where operationally reasonable. The tribunal found that, in the IIT, he received substantial support including mentoring, leadership training, adjusted equipment, and repeated acting-up opportunities.

On the victimisation claim under s.27 EqA 2010, the tribunal accepted the protected acts relied on but rejected most of the alleged detriments as either not proved as pleaded or not detriments at all. It found that PH's remarks, exclusion from sergeants' meetings, changes to project work, the end of acting-up, and later promotion-related discussions were driven by operational structure, confidentiality, staffing needs, or genuine management concerns. The tribunal accepted that some of the claimant's complaints about chair use, the exercise room, and promotion support prompted enquiries and reviews, but not retaliatory treatment.

The s.15 claim failed because the tribunal did not accept that the respondent refused acting-up or secondment opportunities because of something arising from disability. It found the respondent was trying to match opportunities to operationally suitable roles, identify vacancies, and support the claimant's promotion route. Where JM initially expressed a restrictive view on 8 August 2018, the tribunal found this stemmed from a mistaken understanding of the ETDP and a preference for officers with outside-department experience, not from the claimant's protected acts; the position was later corrected and support for promotion was given once the OST issue had been clarified.

The s.20 claim was reduced to a PCP that officers were provided with standard equipment and facilities. The tribunal held that standard desks and chairs placed the claimant at a disadvantage, but the pleaded case did not properly advance a separate auxiliary-aid complaint about other officers using his chair. On the Force Medical Room issue, it found the respondent's response reasonable: it explored alternatives, allowed home visits for exercises while works were completed, and ultimately provided a sofa bed in the repurposed contemplation room. All claims were dismissed and no award was made.