Case 2201408/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Povey v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Heard via CVP (London Central) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2201408/2020
- Decision date
- 13 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davidson
- Panel members
- Ms D Keyms, Ms N Sandler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Povey
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs N Povey brought claims of direct sex discrimination and harassment related to sex against the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. The case was narrowed shortly before the hearing from sixteen alleged incidents to four, all centred on events in November 2019: removal of her firearms blue card, comments said to link the removal to stress and UPP Stage 1, and an occupational health referral made on 29 November 2019.
The tribunal accepted that Officer 1 had taken the actions complained of, but it found that they did not amount to less favourable treatment because of sex. It held that the removal of the blue card was prompted by the claimant’s reaction when told she was being placed on the Unsatisfactory Performance Procedure, together with her earlier performance issues and reluctance to engage with the development process. The tribunal rejected the suggestion that Officer 1 acted on a stereotyped assumption that a woman would not cope with stress, and found that the Occupational Health referral was made to inform the decision about whether the blue card should be returned and that mistakes on the first form were attributable to inexperience rather than sex.
On the harassment claim, the tribunal found that the same conduct was not related to sex and did not have the required purpose or effect under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010. It recorded that the claimant’s own evidence was that she did not feel harassed, that Officer 1 had treated her with courtesy and support, and that any complaint about a negative atmosphere related to her previous line manager, who was not the subject of the claim. Both complaints were dismissed and no remedy arose.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The claimant narrowed the case to four incidents on 4 and 5 November 2019 and 29 November 2019. The tribunal accepted that Officer 1 removed the blue card, made the comments relied on, and arranged the OH referral, but found no less favourable treatment and no sex-related reason for the treatment. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The harassment complaint relied on the same four incidents. The tribunal found the conduct was not related to sex and did not have the purpose or effect of violating dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.13 EqA 2010
- s.23 EqA 2010
- s.26 EqA 2010
- s.136 EqA 2010
- Igen v Wong
- Strathclyde Regional Council v Zafar
- Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Osinaike
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.