Case 2302455/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs H Archer v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis — 2024
- Case reference
- 2302455/2022
- Decision date
- 26 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs H Archer
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claimant's complaints of direct sex, disability and race discrimination were not well founded and dismissed them. It also dismissed the complaints of indirect disability discrimination, discrimination because of something arising from disability, harassment related to disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
The judgment states that none of the claims brought under case numbers 2302455/2022 and 2302049/2023 succeeded. The claimant's application for costs dated 7 December 2023 was withdrawn on the final day of the hearing. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Part of the claimant's complaint of direct sex/disability/race discrimination; found not well founded. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | Part of the claimant's complaint of direct sex/disability/race discrimination; found not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | Part of the claimant's complaint of direct sex/disability/race discrimination; found not well founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of indirect disability discrimination; found not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of discrimination because of something arising from disability; found not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Complaint of harassment related to disability; found not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments; found not well founded. |
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.