Mrs Suzanne Marie Goldsmith v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis — 2024

The claimant, a police sergeant with clinical depression accepted as a disability, brought claims arising from her period in the Resource and Demand Team. The claims concerned requests to transfer out of that team, the refusal to support an NPPF Inspector exam application, alleged handling of sickness absence and performance matters, and alleged comments related to disability and sex.

The tribunal dismissed the victimisation complaints. It found the 24 November 2022 grievance did not amount to a protected act because it raised perceived unfairness rather than a sufficient allegation of contravention of the Equality Act 2010. It also found that, even if the grievance had been a protected act, the relevant managers did not know enough about it as an Equality Act complaint and the alleged detriments were not caused by it.

The tribunal dismissed the harassment complaints. It found that the 21 February 2023 telephone call allegation about writing up absences was not proved in the form alleged, and that the email comments about sickness absence, workload, childcare, the WBA, the NPPF exam and a possible MIST move were management comments reflecting issues the claimant had raised. The tribunal found they were not related to sex or disability in the alleged way and did not have the purpose or reasonable effect required by s.26.

The tribunal dismissed the discrimination arising from disability complaints. It accepted that sickness absence, loss of fitness and weight gain arose from disability, and that refusal to deploy the claimant to ERPT was unfavourable treatment because she lacked JRFT and full PPST. However, it found the refusal justified by the operational and safety requirements of response policing. It also found the refusal to support the NPPF exam application was justified by attendance criteria, and that the MIST transfer decision was not materially because of disability-related absence and was not unfavourable in the circumstances.

The reasonable adjustments complaints were dismissed. The tribunal accepted the attendance management criteria and the requirement for full PPST, ELS and JRFT were PCPs, but found the proposed adjustments were not reasonable. It found that discounting the claimant's absence to the extent needed for the NPPF exam was not reasonable, that transfer to ERPT without full PPST and JRFT was not reasonable, and that transfer to MIST, MetDet or another role had not been shown to remove the pleaded disadvantage.