Case 2202757/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Pimienta v Commissioner for Police of the Metropolis — 2024
- Case reference
- 2202757/2022
- Decision date
- 15 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Singh
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms Z Darmas, Mr A Adolphus
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Pimienta
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Pimienta was employed as a Metropolitan Police officer and it was agreed that he was disabled at all relevant times by a back injury and by anxiety and depression. The case concerned allegations arising over several years, including tasking at Charing Cross and Belgravia, an alleged incident involving Inspector McManus in December 2021, refusal of a larger tablet or laptop, and later victimisation after he said he would pursue an Employment Tribunal claim.
On the section 15 claim, the tribunal did not accept the claimant's account of the 6 December 2021 incident. It found that Inspector McManus did not shout at him, did not call him a liar, and did not threaten formal disciplinary action; the referral was to reflective practice, which the tribunal treated as an informal process. It also found that the claimant had not shown he was working from home on 11 November 2021 because of his back condition, and that there was no evidence Inspector McManus knew of his back condition.
On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal rejected the complaints about the bunker task at Charing Cross, the Belgravia instructions about uniforms and documents, and the motorcycle allegation. It held that the instructions were limited to work within the claimant's capacity and that any heavier or more extensive work would have been outside those instructions and contrary to the need for a dynamic risk assessment. It also rejected the auxiliary-aid complaint about a larger tablet or laptop: the medical evidence before July 2023 did not establish a need for such equipment, the DSE note that a laptop may be better was treated as an operational matter, and after a July 2023 report a laptop was provided within 15 days.
The victimisation claim also failed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had done a protected act on 12 May 2022 by saying he would bring tribunal proceedings, but it did not find the alleged detriments proved. It did not accept that he had been told not to speak to PS Reid, and it found that PS Reid remained his line manager while Augustine Anyaegbuna acted as second line manager during the relevant period. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The section 15 claim about the 6 December 2021 incident failed. The tribunal rejected the allegations that Inspector McManus shouted at the claimant, called him a liar, threatened disciplinary action, or caused PS Reid to discipline him. It found that reflective practice was informal rather than disciplinary, that the claimant had not shown he was working from home on 11 November 2021 because of his back, and that there was no evidence Inspector McManus knew of the back condition. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The reasonable-adjustments complaints failed, including the Charing Cross bunker task, the Belgravia uniforms/documents task, the motorcycle allegation, and the larger tablet/laptop complaint. The tribunal held that the instructions were limited to work within the claimant's capacity and did not amount to PCPs that put him at a substantial disadvantage; it also found that any more onerous work would have been beyond the instructions and contrary to the need for a dynamic risk assessment. On the equipment issue, the medical material before July 2023 did not establish a need for a larger tablet or laptop, and when a July 2023 report was produced a laptop was supplied within 15 days. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal accepted that telling PS Reid on 12 May 2022 that he intended to bring an ET claim was a protected act, but it did not find the alleged detriments proved. It rejected the claim that Inspector Scott told the claimant not to speak to PS Reid, and it found that PS Reid remained the claimant's line manager, with Augustine Anyaegbuna acting as second line manager during the relevant period. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
16 references- s.15 EqA 2010
- Secretary of State for Justice and anor v Dunn
- T-Systems Ltd v Lewis
- Basildon and Thurrock NHS Foundation Trust v Weerasinghe
- Pnaiser v NHS England and anor
- Sheikholeslami v University of Edinburgh
- s.20(3) EqA 2010
- s.20(5) EqA 2010
- Project Management Institute v Latif
- Environment Agency v Rowan
- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Alam
- s.27 EqA 2010
- Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- South London Healthcare NHS Trust v Al-Rubeyi
- s.123 EqA 2010
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.