Case 2306516/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Carmichael v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis — 2025
- Case reference
- 2306516/2023
- Decision date
- 20 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge AEPitt Representation
- Venue
- via the Common Video Platform
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Carmichael
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant's section 15 Equality Act claim was well founded and succeeded. It also recorded that two reasonable adjustment allegations under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 were well made out: altering the attendance and mandatory training criteria from the ERTW scheme, and allowing the claimant to rescind the retirement application and find a suitable alternative role.
The tribunal dismissed the withdrawn direct disability discrimination claim relating to the Superintendent role. It dismissed the indirect disability discrimination claim, the harassment related to disability claim, a further direct disability discrimination claim, and two reasonable adjustment allegations concerning disapplying the attendance and mandatory training criteria from the ERTW scheme and retaining the claimant in his role.
The written judgment records outcomes only and states that reasons were given orally. It does not include remedy figures, written reasons, or lay panel members.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010 in relation to the application for a Superintendent role was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claims under section 15 Equality Act were found well founded and succeeded. The judgment text refers to 'Equality Act 2020', which appears in the source text but is recorded here without correction. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Reasonable adjustment claims under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 succeeded in relation to altering the attendance and mandatory training criteria from the ERTW scheme, and allowing the claimant to rescind the retirement application and find a suitable alternative role. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Reasonable adjustment claims under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 were dismissed in relation to disapplying the attendance and mandatory training criteria from the ERTW scheme, and allowing the claimant to rescind the retirement application and retain him in his role. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Indirect disability discrimination under section 19 Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and was dismissed. |
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.