Case 2304102/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. R Adams v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis — 2018
- Case reference
- 2304102/2018
- Decision date
- 3 October 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McLaren Members
- Panel members
- Ms. G Mitchell, Mrs. F Whiting
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. R Adams
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, an Inspector, brought claims concerning age, sex and disability discrimination, harassment and victimisation arising from events during 2018. The tribunal found the respondent knew the claimant was disabled by reason of anxiety and depression with insomnia and poor concentration from 7 August 2018, but not before that date.
The direct age discrimination claim was dismissed. The tribunal found the January 2018 Safer Neighbourhood appointment decision was partly influenced by age, but that allegation was out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time. The later age allegations about a September 2018 role, the Leading for London attachment, and shift adjustments were not made out. The direct sex discrimination claim also failed because the tribunal found the comparator relied on was in materially different circumstances and the treatment was not because of sex.
The disability claims succeeded in part. The tribunal upheld indirect disability discrimination only in respect of requiring the claimant to work at Sutton Police Station, finding that after the claimant asked to work more locally on 29 August 2018 the requirement was not proportionate for the project work he was doing. It also upheld failures to make reasonable adjustments by not allowing work at Bromley before October 2018 and not allowing homeworking in October 2018. The s15 pay-related claim and other reasonable adjustment allegations were dismissed.
The tribunal upheld disability-related harassment in relation to several comments and contacts after knowledge of disability, including comments about insomnia, resilience, proving himself, reputation, Occupational Health, and contact by CI Haynes after the claimant had asked not to be contacted. Other harassment allegations failed because they were out of time, not related to disability, or not unwanted conduct related to disability. The victimisation claim was dismissed because the alleged detriments either predated the protected acts, did not occur as alleged, or were not caused by the protected acts.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination under s13 EqA was dismissed. The tribunal found the January 2018 Safer Neighbourhood role decision involved age as a factor but the claim was out of time and no extension was granted; the September 2018 Safer Neighbourhood allegation, Leading for London attachment allegations, and shift-adjustment allegation were not made out. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination under s13 EqA was dismissed. The tribunal found Inspector LM was not an appropriate comparator and that the claimant was not refused a temporary role because of sex. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | The s15 EqA discrimination arising from disability claim about threatened or reduced pay was dismissed. The tribunal found the respondent did not have knowledge of disability until 7 August 2018, after the 1 August letter, and that the letter was an administrative warning required by law; pay was not reduced. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The indirect disability discrimination claim under s19 EqA was upheld only in relation to the PCP requiring an Inspector to work at Sutton Police Station only. The shift-pattern and late-shift PCP allegations were dismissed because the tribunal accepted objective justification. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
21 references- s13 Equality Act 2010
- Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Homer
- Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes
- s19 Equality Act 2010
- s6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- Seccombe v Reed in Partnership Ltd
- McDougall v Richmond Adult Community College
- s15 Equality Act 2010
- Tarbuck v Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd
- HM Prison Service v Johnson
- O'Hanlon v Revenue and Customs Commissioners
- s27 Equality Act 2010
- s26 Equality Act 2010
- Igen v Wong
- Royal Mail Group v Efobi
- Madarassy v Nomura International
- s123 Equality Act 2010
- Barclays Bank plc v Kapur
- Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Hendricks
- Lyfar v Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals Trust
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.