Ms S Waslin v The Chief Constable of Humberside Police — 2020

The claimant, a Detective Constable, was accepted to be disabled by reason of hypothyroidism. In February 2019 her flexible working application was approved on the basis of occupational health advice, including a pattern of 0800 to 1800 hours, no more than ten hours on a shift, and no more than five consecutive shifts, preferably four. The tribunal found that this earlier flexible working process had been handled positively and that the claimant had not been disadvantaged by it.

The complaints arose from discussions in April 2019 about a possible move to the Protecting Vulnerable People department. The tribunal preferred the respondent's evidence of the 9 April discussion and the email of 11 April 2019. It found that the respondent was not telling the claimant she was unsuitable for the role, but was instead inviting her to propose a shift pattern that could be considered with occupational health input. The tribunal also found that the claimant did not provide the occupational health report at the time, and that the report did not state that she could not work beyond 6.00pm.

On the reasonable adjustments complaint, the tribunal held that the alleged PCP of requiring the claimant to work beyond 6.00pm had not been applied on 9 or 11 April 2019. It found that discussions were at a preliminary stage, that no final decision had been made, and that the respondent was following a process intended to identify a workable pattern. In any event, the tribunal found that the claimant had not proved that she was placed at a substantial disadvantage on the facts as they stood at the material time.

On indirect discrimination, the tribunal reached the same conclusion. It held that the claimant had not shown that the PCP relied on was applied at the material time or that it put her at a particular disadvantage. The tribunal added that, if it had needed to decide justification, it accepted the respondent's evidence that PVP operated shifts between 7.00am and 10.00pm, that the unit needed to safeguard vulnerable people outside office hours, and that team alignment and supervision were legitimate aims. Both complaints were therefore dismissed.