Miss J Ruddick v The Chief Constable of Northumbria Police — 2020

This was a public preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Johnson sitting alone in Miss J Ruddick v The Chief Constable of Northumbria Police. The tribunal was asked only to decide whether, during the relevant period, the claimant had a disability within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, whether the respondent actually knew of it, and if not whether it could reasonably have been expected to know.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant had a mental impairment during the relevant period, arising from stress, anxiety and depression symptoms, with later PTSD features. It found that the impairment had a substantial effect on normal day-to-day activities, including sleep, driving, shopping, leaving the house, socialising and concentration. The judgment records a deterioration in June 2018 after a meeting with Sergeant Hilsden, followed by sickness absence, GP treatment, occupational health referrals and escalating antidepressant medication.

On knowledge, the tribunal found that Sergeants Wilmore-Greaves and Hilsden, Sergeant Banks and HR officer Sarah Burns did not actually know that the claimant was disabled during the relevant period. It nevertheless held that the respondent ought reasonably to have known by no later than 11 October 2018, taking account of the information available to managers, HR and occupational health, including the claimant's reported stress, self-harm, medication, occupational health advice and the respondent's failure to collate the information properly.

The tribunal referred to the statutory definition of disability, the long-term effect provisions in Schedule 1, the Code of Practice on Employment, and the authorities it cited on impairment, long-term effect and constructive knowledge. It also found that the respondent's absence-management arrangements were ineffective because information was not brought together in a way that allowed the respondent to meet its Equality Act duties.