Case 2204199/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Ms K King v British Transport Police — 2021

Case reference: 2204199/2021
Decision date: 4 May 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge H Grewal
Venue: London Central
Panel members: Mr I McLaughlin, Mr D Schofield

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms K King

Respondent

British Transport Police

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Ms King was a part-time Police Inspector and Duty Officer in C Division. In January 2021 she applied to continue working for six months beyond her compulsory retirement age of 16 April 2021. The respondent first said it would wait for the promotion-board outcomes, then on 21 March 2021 limited the extension to 4 May 2021. Her appeal was dismissed on 27 April 2021, and she retired on 4 May 2021.

The tribunal upheld the complaint under the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. It found that Inspectors Lawman and Archer were comparable full-time workers in C Division and that the claimant was treated less favourably because she worked part-time. The tribunal held that the primary reason for the refusal was that it was said to be neither efficient nor sustainable to continue with a 0.5 role, and it found that part-time status was the effective and predominant cause. The respondent's reliance on workforce planning, operational resilience and development opportunities did not amount to objective justification because it had not properly examined alternatives or gathered sufficient evidence about the effect of keeping the post open or covering it temporarily.

The tribunal also upheld indirect sex discrimination. Although the Retirement and Re-engagement policy did not say that only full-time officers could work beyond CRA, the tribunal found that the respondent applied such a PCP in practice: all 17 applications from full-time inspectors had been approved, while the claimant's part-time application was refused. It found that women were at a particular disadvantage because a higher proportion of female officers than male officers worked part-time, and it held that the PCP was not a proportionate means of achieving the respondent's aims. The direct sex discrimination complaint was dismissed because the tribunal found no basis for concluding that a male part-time Duty Officer would have been treated more favourably. The supplied text records liability findings only and contains no remedy award.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

This 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
Part-time worker regulations	The tribunal found that Inspectors Lawman and Archer were comparable full-time workers in C Division and that the claimant was treated less favourably because she was a part-time worker. It held that the refusal to extend her employment beyond CRA was not objectively justified.	Upheld	—	—
Sex discrimination	Indirect sex discrimination claim. The tribunal found that the respondent applied a PCP in practice requiring an Inspector to work full-time beyond CRA, that women were at a particular disadvantage because a much higher proportion of female officers worked part-time, and that the PCP was not proportionate.	Upheld	Sex	—
Sex discrimination	Direct sex discrimination claim. The tribunal found no basis for saying that a male part-time Duty Officer would have been treated more favourably, and it dismissed the complaint.	Dismissed	Sex	—

Legal tests applied

16 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.