Mr A Korn, of Counsel For the v Respondent — 2019

The tribunal found that the Claimant, a Police Sergeant who identified herself as an openly gay female officer, had a long-standing back condition and later a work-related stress/depression condition. It held that Inspector Childs had constructive knowledge of the disability caused by the back condition from at least July 2017, and that Inspector Tanner and the respondent had constructive knowledge of the depression-related disability from 2 January 2018, following the Medical Officer’s report. The complaint of direct discrimination because of disability was withdrawn.

The sexual orientation harassment complaints about Inspector Childs’ interactions in 2016-2017 were rejected as out of time and not just and equitable to extend, in part because the factual issues turned on disputed oral exchanges that were difficult to resolve fairly after the passage of time. The tribunal also found that the July 2017 decision to move the Claimant to the Early Response Team was not influenced by her sexual orientation, and that the appeal decision did not change that conclusion.

The harassment complaints related to disability and sex were dismissed. The tribunal held that Inspector Tanner’s comments and management actions, including the reference to his own back issue, the CARMS process, the revocation communication, the case conferences, and the management action that was later rescinded, did not meet the s.26 harassment threshold. It also held that Sergeant Everett’s ‘brain fart’ remark and Inspector Tanner’s ‘RBF’ comment were not harassment of the Claimant, even though the latter comment was found to be related to sex.

The Claimant succeeded on discrimination arising from disability only in relation to the revocation of her transfer to One Met. The tribunal accepted that the revocation was materially caused by her sick leave, and although the respondent’s aim of efficient service running was legitimate, revoking the transfer at that point was not a proportionate means of achieving that aim. The tribunal also upheld the reasonable adjustments complaint in relation to not revoking the transfer and, separately, in relation to the delay in allocating a different line manager, finding that a change of line manager could have alleviated some of the disadvantage arising from the Claimant’s depression. The claim failed on the laptop/tablet issue, the CARMS investigation, and the other indirect discrimination grounds relied on. Remedies were left for a later hearing and were not determined in this judgment.