Case 2301291/2016 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Bari v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis — 2020
- Case reference
- 2301291/2016
- Decision date
- 21 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright
- Venue
- Croydon
- Panel members
- Mrs T Bryant, Ms M Foster-Norman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Bari
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, who was employed as a Communications Officer and had been diagnosed with MS, brought claims of disability discrimination and unlawful deduction from wages. The respondent accepted that she was disabled for the purposes of s.6 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal considered a series of incidents between December 2015 and June 2016 concerning occupational health recommendations, working patterns, sickness absence, management communications and pay consequences.
The tribunal upheld parts of the disability discrimination complaints. It found that some comments and actions connected with the claimant's inability to work night shifts, her weekend working, the occupational health referral mentioning redeployment, comments about the effect of her adjusted working pattern on the team, the informal management action letter, and the request that she produce a rota or business plan amounted to unlawful treatment under the Equality Act 2010. It also found that the respondent failed to make a reasonable adjustment when issuing the informal management action letter, where the reasonable adjustment would have been not to issue it or to discuss attendance concerns without issuing it.
Other allegations were dismissed, including the complaint about cancelling a chair order, the allegation about a comment that it was good the claimant had lost vision in one eye, rota errors which the tribunal accepted were clerical errors, and all victimisation allegations. The tribunal found that the decision to prevent the claimant working the weekend of 20-21 February 2016 caused loss of the shift premium and amounted to an unlawful deduction from wages, with the amount left to be addressed at a remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability was upheld in part. The upheld allegations included the 19 January 2016 confrontation about start time, comments on 20 and 23 February 2016 about night shifts and another employee with MS, comments about pressure on the team, and the 6 June 2016 request concerning a rota or business plan. Other harassment allegations were dismissed. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability under s.15 Equality Act 2010 was upheld in part. The tribunal upheld allegations about comments on night shifts, loss of weekend premium following the 17 February 2016 instruction not to work, the occupational health referral mentioning redeployment, removal from weekend/four-on-four-off working, and issuing the informal management action letter. Other s.15 allegations were dismissed. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments under s.20 Equality Act 2010 was upheld in relation to issuing the informal management action letter. The tribunal found the PCP was maintaining reasonable levels of attendance and that a reasonable adjustment would have been not to issue the letter, or to discuss concerns without issuing it. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation claims under s.27 Equality Act 2010 were dismissed. The tribunal found the relevant acts were not because of protected acts and, for one allegation, the alleged protected acts post-dated the conduct complained of. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.20 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Pemberton v Bishop of Southwell [2018] EWCA Civ 564
- Grant v Land Registry [2011] EWCA Civ 769
- Richmond Pharmacology Ltd v Dhaliwal [2009] IRLR 336
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.