Case 2201732/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms F Takyi-Micah v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis — 2018
- Case reference
- 2201732/2018
- Decision date
- 12 January 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khan
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Mr M Simon, Dr V Weerasinghe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms F Takyi-Micah
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a Black African woman employed as a PCSO, had depression accepted by the respondent as a disability. The tribunal considered complaints arising from events after workplace concerns involving PS Dale, the handling of her complaints, her transfer from Edmonton to Tottenham, welfare interventions, contact with her GP, and delay in concluding a grievance.
The tribunal found that the transfer decision and rejection of the appeal were based on the respondent's assessment that the claimant's animosity towards PS Dale and comments she had made created a risk of confrontation if they remained at the same location. It accepted that there were process failures, including the absence of a clear audit trail and written rationale, but found these did not show race discrimination, disability-related causation, or victimisation.
The tribunal found that the claimant had done protected acts in relation to allegations of racism and disability-related language, but not all matters she relied on were protected acts. It found the protected acts were not an effective cause of the transfer, welfare response, GP contact, appeal rejection, or grievance delay. The delay in the grievance was found unreasonable, but the tribunal accepted evidence that it arose from difficulties arranging interviews, workload and leave, and a genuine though mistaken belief about what had already been investigated.
Claims and outcomes
8 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination complaints were dismissed. Some allegations were withdrawn during the hearing. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Race-related harassment was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make adjustments was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Equality Act victimisation complaints were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Sex discrimination complaints, identified as harassment and direct discrimination, were dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
16 references- s.13(1) Equality Act 2010
- O'Neill v Governors of St Thomas More RC Voluntarily Aided Upper School
- s.15(1) Equality Act 2010
- Pnaiser v NHS England
- R (on the application of E) v Governing Body of JFS
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- Aziz v Trinity Street Taxis Limited
- s.39(2) Equality Act 2010
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of RUC
- St Helens MBC v Derbyshire
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Chief Constable of Kent Constabulary v Bowler
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
- Anya v University of Oxford
- Igen Ltd v Wong
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.