Mr W Roderick v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police — 2021

The tribunal dismissed all claims. It held that the complaints of disability discrimination under sections 13, 15, 20/21 and 26 Equality Act 2010 were not well founded, that the complaints of religion or belief discrimination under sections 13 and 26 Equality Act 2010 were not well founded, and that the complaint of constructive dismissal, including the claimant's reliance on sections 13 and 15 Equality Act 2010, was not well founded.

On disability knowledge, the tribunal found the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that the claimant was disabled when he joined the Hub in April 2017 or during the earlier part of 2017. It concluded that knowledge arose only on receipt of the 7 November 2017 FMA report and functional assessment, or within a reasonable time for that information to be received and considered. The tribunal accepted that the claimant's pleaded first PCP, requiring him to achieve the prescribed standard of performance and resume the ordinary duties of a police officer with minimum support, was apt to amount to a PCP and placed him at a substantial disadvantage, but it found the respondent had already put in place phased returns, restricted duties, regular meetings, daily support from colleagues, and later a move to IST with simple tasks and no public contact.

The reasonable adjustment claim failed because the tribunal was not persuaded that the additional steps relied on by the claimant would have removed or reduced the disadvantage. It found that developmental input and supervisory support had been provided, that a formal mentor or more formal paperwork would not have changed the position, and that moving the claimant to another police officer role or keeping him away from the Hub would not have alleviated the problem. The tribunal concluded that the claimant's difficulty was not the physical environment of the Hub or IST but his deteriorated relationship with the respondent and the stress he felt in working alongside functioning officers, and that by about April 2018 further adjustments were likely to have been pointless.

The direct disability discrimination, disability-related harassment and section 15 claims were also dismissed. The tribunal rejected or did not treat as actionable several factual allegations, including that PS O'Sullivan became angry at the 2 July 2017 meeting, that the claimant was routinely left for full shifts without work, that Ian Francis swore at him, that Alex Gregory said he was no good and could not be utilised, and that Cheryl Flowers had informally warned him in June 2017. It found that Karl Emerson had used the 'pants on head' phrase, but only as banter first used by the claimant himself, and that Cheryl Flowers' question about what work the claimant could do and her request that he look forward were reasonable enquiries of a returning employee. The tribunal also found that the grievance outcome, although unfavourable to the claimant, was not shown to be biased, selective or prejudiced, nor was it because of something arising from disability.