Miss H Holmes v The Chief Constable Of Merseyside Police — 2022

The claimant brought claims of direct disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, discrimination arising from disability, and discrimination on the basis that she was a part-time worker. The direct disability discrimination claim was withdrawn during submissions, and the reasonable adjustments claim was withdrawn during the claimant's oral evidence. Both were dismissed on withdrawal.

The tribunal dismissed the discrimination arising from disability claim. The claimant relied specifically on PTSD as her disability, but during cross-examination accepted that there was no written record of a PTSD diagnosis. The medical evidence recorded abdominal symptoms, anxiety, situational stressors, and symptoms consistent with PTSD, but the tribunal found that the claimant had not proved on the balance of probabilities that she had PTSD. The tribunal also found, in the alternative, that the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that the claimant had PTSD because the information from medical professionals did not support the claimant's assertion.

The tribunal further considered the substance of the disability claim in the alternative. It accepted that refusing the claimant's business interest applications was unfavourable treatment, but found that the refusals were not because of absences said to arise from PTSD. For the first application, the tribunal accepted evidence that decision makers took a holistic approach, with concerns including welfare, total working hours, the more extensive nature of the proposed business, and the fact the claimant appeared to have operated without the necessary permission. For the second application, it accepted that the decision makers were unwilling to contradict the Chief Constable's earlier decision to review the matter after 12 months. The tribunal also found that, if discrimination had otherwise been established, the refusals would have been justified as a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of running the Force effectively and efficiently, including avoiding reputational risk.

The part-time worker claim was dismissed because the claimant did not establish a valid actual comparator. The tribunal found that the proposed full-time comparator's business interest application concerned beauty treatments for about four hours per month and did not involve owning premises or employing staff. That was comparable to the permission the claimant had previously been granted in 2013, but not to her 2019 and 2020 applications, which involved running a business with premises and staff. Because the claimant could not rely on a hypothetical comparator under the Part-Time Workers Regulations, the claim failed.