Ms K Annand, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2018

The Tribunal heard two consolidated claims brought by Ms Parkinson against the Metropolitan Police Service. It found that she was disabled by reason of dyslexia and that the Respondent knew of that disability from the point of diagnosis in 2004. In the first claim, covering October 2015 to 9 May 2017, the Respondent conceded that it had failed to make reasonable adjustments after her move from Islington to Southwark, and that claim succeeded. The direct disability discrimination limb of the first claim had been withdrawn.

In the second claim, covering 10 May 2017 to 1 May 2018, the Tribunal found that the Respondent did not provide effective reasonable adjustments or auxiliary aids. Although Dragon and Text Help software were made available on a desktop in the YOTS office, the arrangement was treated as an interim solution and was not fit for purpose: the computer had insufficient memory for the software, the office was noisy, the Claimant had limited time to practise because of other duties, and several Access to Work recommendations had not been implemented promptly. The Tribunal accepted the Claimant's evidence, including video footage, that the software was performing poorly and rejected the suggestion that the difficulties were mainly due to her diction or grammar.

The Tribunal also upheld the s.15 claim for discrimination arising from disability. It found that the Claimant was subjected to management action, the commencement and continuation of the UPP process, pressure to return to work despite being certified unfit, and the absence of a suitable alternative role. Those matters were treated as unfavourable treatment caused by something arising in consequence of her disability, and the Respondent did not show that the treatment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The Tribunal also held that the same attendance management process, operated in the way it was in this case, amounted to harassment related to disability under s.26.

The Tribunal recorded that the direct disability discrimination claims in both cases, together with the indirect disability discrimination and victimisation claims in the second case, had been withdrawn. The judgment supplied is a liability judgment only and does not record any monetary award.