Mr Jordan Miller v Chief Constable of Cleveland Police — 2021

Mr Jordan Miller joined Cleveland Police on 26 March 2018 as a student officer. On 9 April 2018 he suffered a haemorrhagic stroke, followed by ongoing visual impairment and epilepsy. The respondent accepted that he was disabled within the Equality Act 2010. The Force Medical Adviser later concluded that he was medically unfit to perform police officer duties on a long-term basis, and the respondent began a Regulation 13 process. During 2019 the claimant sought to remain employed in a civilian role, identified the Police Staff Investigator role at CNYMIT, and gained further investigative experience through work in Stockton CID and a secondment to CNYMIT. The chief officer’s decision on 3 December 2019 was that he should be dismissed as a police officer, with assistance to seek alternative employment; dismissal took effect on 31 December 2019.

The direct discrimination claim under section 13 failed. The tribunal rejected the claimant’s proposed comparator and held that the relevant comparator was a person who, for reasons other than disability, was unable to perform the duties of a police officer for the foreseeable future. On that basis, it found no less favourable treatment because the reason for dismissal was the claimant’s inability to complete training and carry out officer duties, rather than direct treatment because of disability.

The reasonable adjustments claim succeeded. The tribunal found that the respondent operated a policy under which student officers were not offered suitable police staff roles, including when subject to Regulation 13, and that this put the claimant at a substantial disadvantage because he was required to leave and compete externally for staff posts rather than be considered through internal redeployment. It held that a reasonable adjustment would have been to offer the vacant PSI (CNYMIT) role, or to deploy him to it through a collaborative skills assessment process, as the respondent’s own policies for police staff and restricted duties contemplated posting or redeployment after assessment and, where necessary, retraining. The tribunal found that by 3 December 2019 at the latest there was a vacancy for PSI (CNYMIT), that the claimant would likely have been suitable for it, and that the respondent failed to take the reasonable step of offering that vacancy.

The section 15 claim also succeeded. The tribunal treated the unfavourable treatment as the termination of the employment relationship, including the Regulation 13 dismissal and the failure to offer alternative employment. It found that the claimant’s inability to perform police officer duties, arising from his disability, was an effective cause of that treatment and was in the decision-maker’s mind when the dismissal decision was made. The respondent’s justification argument failed. The tribunal accepted operational credibility and maintaining capable officers as legitimate aims in relation to dismissal as a police officer, but held that the pleaded funding rationale did not correspond to the real reason for refusing transfer and that the respondent had a less detrimental alternative available. The case was listed for a remedy hearing; no compensation figure was determined in this judgment.