Case 2302073/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. J McDonald v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis — 2019
- Case reference
- 2302073/2020
- Decision date
- 27 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McLaren Members
- Venue
- South London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms S Evans, Miss N Murphy
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. J McDonald
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a police officer in the Technical Support Unit, brought disability discrimination claims arising from his hip injury, later stress and anxiety, absence management, sick pay and the Unsatisfactory Performance Procedure. The respondent accepted disability from hip/right thigh injury and knowledge of stress and anxiety disability from 4 September 2019. The tribunal held that all matters on or before 22 February 2020 were out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time.
On the May 2019 meeting, the tribunal found that the claimant was not threatened with disciplinary action or presented with an ultimatum, although the UPP process was mentioned. On the 27 June 2019 telephone call, the tribunal accepted that DS Hadleigh raised her voice and made the disputed comment about the claimant working from home; it found this would have amounted to unfavourable treatment arising from disability and harassment related to the hip disability, but those claims were out of time.
The tribunal found that the request for return of work materials was less favourable treatment but not because of disability and not something arising in consequence of disability; it accepted the explanation that the request was made for operational reasons. For the UPP allegations, the tribunal accepted the respondent's legitimate aims and found that starting and continuing the process was proportionate given the length of absence, lack of prognosis, and attempts made to engage with the claimant.
The reasonable adjustments claims failed. The tribunal held that it was not reasonable to disregard further disability-related absence or delay the UPP longer, that changing line management before 30 April 2020 was not a reasonable adjustment on the facts, and that continuing full sick pay beyond contractual entitlement was not one of the rare cases where such an adjustment would be reasonable. All claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination under s.13 Equality Act 2010 relating to the request for return of work-related materials was out of time/no jurisdiction; the tribunal also found it would not have succeeded because the treatment was not because of disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability under s.15 Equality Act 2010. Allegations concerning 13 May, 27 June and 28 June 2019 were out of time/no jurisdiction; the 27 June call would otherwise have succeeded. Allegations concerning instigation and continuation of the UPP procedure were dismissed because the tribunal found the respondent's actions proportionate. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments under ss.20-21 Equality Act 2010 concerning the UPP/satisfactory attendance requirement, line management by DS Hadleigh, and occupational sick pay policy. The tribunal found the claimed adjustments were not reasonable on the facts. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability under s.26 Equality Act 2010. The 13 May allegation was not found as alleged. The 27 June call was found to be unwanted conduct related to the claimant's hip disability with the relevant effect, but the claim was out of time/no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
23 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- ss.20-21 Equality Act 2010
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Pnaiser v NHS England
- Buchanan v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- City of York Council v Grosset
- Ali v Torrosian
- Griffiths v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
- HM Prison Service v Johnson
- Fareham College Corporation v Walters
- Meikle v Nottinghamshire County Council
- O'Hanlon v Commissioners for Revenue and Customs
- Igen v Wong
- Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd
- Madarassy v Nomura International
- Lyfar v Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals Trust
- Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Hendricks
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- British Coal v Keeble
- Southwark London Borough Council v Afolabi
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
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.