Case 1403129/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Joynes v The Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Constabulary — 2020
- Case reference
- 1403129/2018
- Decision date
- 3 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Harper MBE
- Venue
- Bristol
- Panel members
- Mr E Beese, Mr H Launder
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Joynes
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs J Joynes worked for Gloucestershire Constabulary from 6 December 1998 to 12 December 2018. The tribunal accepted that she had generalised anxiety disorder, systemic lupus erythematosus and Raynaud's syndrome, and found that the respondent knew of the anxiety as well as the physical conditions. It applied section 136 Equality Act 2010 and the guidance in Igen v Wong and Madarassy v Nomura International when considering the burden of proof, and also considered section 123(3) Equality Act 2010 on complaint C.
The tribunal found that the claimant had previously worked well with agreed adjustments, including homeworking and working from Bamfurlong police station, but that the respondent's approach changed after the arrival of DS Fletcher and other management changes in early 2018. It held that the respondent removed or restricted adjustments that had been working, and that it failed to act reasonably in relation to the requests for reduced Friday and Sunday hours, a reduced workload, continued homeworking or working closer to home, and the proposed duties from July 2018. On that basis, the reasonable adjustments complaints A, B, D, E, F and G succeeded.
On complaint C, the tribunal held that there was no adjudication on direct disability discrimination because section 212(5) Equality Act 2010 applied. It found, however, that harassment and discrimination arising from disability were made out on complaint C, based on conduct on 21 February and 14 March 2018. Complaint D also succeeded for harassment and discrimination arising from disability in relation to the 16 April 2018 return-to-work plan, the contact requirement and the associated removal of arrangements.
Complaint H succeeded as discrimination arising from disability. Complaint I, which concerned the ill-health retirement process, failed on reasonable adjustments, discrimination arising from disability and harassment. The tribunal criticised aspects of the process and the short initial time allowed to respond, but did not uphold the discrimination claims on that complaint. No remedy was determined in this judgment; the tribunal listed a one-day remedy hearing for 4 February 2020 before the same panel if possible.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Reasonable adjustments claims succeeded on complaints A, B, D, E, F and G. These concerned the refusal of three hours on Fridays and three hours on Sundays, the failure to reduce workload, the 16 April 2018 return-to-work plan and contact requirement, removal of homeworking permission, removal of permission to work in a station close to home, and the requirement to undertake full ITO duties from 18 July 2018. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint I failed on reasonable adjustments, arising from disability and harassment in relation to the ill-health retirement process. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability claims succeeded on complaints C, D and H. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint I failed as discrimination arising from disability in relation to the ill-health retirement process. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment claims succeeded on complaints C and D. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- section 136 Equality Act 2010 burden of proof
- Igen v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International
- section 212(5) Equality Act 2010
- section 123(3) Equality Act 2010
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- Pnaiser v NHS England
- EHRC Code of Practice on Employment 2011
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.