Mr A Crammond, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2022

Mr Karim was a probationary Metropolitan Police constable with a hearing impairment, which the respondent accepted was a disability. The tribunal found that occupational health advice from 2018 onwards identified enhanced in-ear hearing aids as the adjustment likely to help him carry out operational duties, but the respondent kept him in non-operational or restricted roles for long periods and required him to contribute to the cost of equipment and to insure it. It also held that the complaints were in time, treating the earlier adjustment issues and the 2021 at works test as linked conduct extending over time.

On the indirect discrimination and reasonable adjustments claims, the tribunal accepted that the respondent applied PCPs including keeping probationers in administrative roles while operational fitness was assessed, requiring disabled officers to fund part of Access to Work equipment and insurance, and requiring an at works test before completion of probation. It found those PCPs put Mr Karim and other disabled probationers at a substantial disadvantage, accepted the respondent's aims of training probationers to be fit for duty and protecting public and officer safety, but held that the PCPs were not proportionate. The tribunal found it would have been reasonable to pay the full cost of the enhanced in-ear hearing aids, allow Mr Karim to continue in his role once suitable hearing aids were provided, give refresher operational training and practice with the equipment, and permit more than one at works test if needed.

The tribunal rejected direct disability discrimination, finding that the assessors at the at works test did not act on stereotypical assumptions and that AC Ephgrave would have dismissed a non-disabled probationer who, after repeated extensions, had been assessed as unable to perform the full duties of a police officer safely. It upheld the s.15 discrimination arising from disability claim because the dismissal followed the officers' assessment that Mr Karim could not carry out the role safely, and it held that dismissal was not a proportionate means of achieving the respondent's legitimate aims. For Polkey/Chagger purposes, the tribunal assessed that there was a 60% chance he would have passed probation if the respondent had acted lawfully, and a 40% chance of dismissal in any event. A remedy hearing was listed for 14 April 2023.