Case 2502201/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Owens v The Chief Constable Of North Yorkshire Police — 2022
- Case reference
- 2502201/2020
- Decision date
- 21 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Loy
- Panel members
- Mr M Brain, Mr J Adams
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Owens
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs S Owens, a police constable with lymphoedema following breast cancer surgery and later diagnosed mental health conditions, brought disability discrimination claims about pay reduction during sickness absence, annual leave while off sick, reasonable adjustments, and harassment. The hearing was on liability only, so no remedy was assessed. The tribunal first construed paragraph 7(c) of PNB Circular 05/01 and preferred the respondent's case: the pay-extension exception applies only while there is an extant referral to a Selected Medical Practitioner, not throughout the wider ill-health retirement process.
On the section 15 claim, the tribunal accepted that reducing pay under regulation 28 was unfavourable treatment arising from disability-related absence. It rejected the assertion that the claimant had been required to take annual leave in order to preserve full pay, finding that this was a suggestion by the claimant which the respondent accommodated. The tribunal held that the respondent's aim of retaining officers on sick leave while managing public spending was legitimate, and that applying regulation 28 and the PNB guidance was proportionate in the circumstances. It took account of the claimant's prolonged absence, the medical evidence, and the fact that she did not attempt the alternative duties identified by SMP1.
On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal found constructive knowledge of the claimant's mental health disability from January 2020 when NYP received Dr Beaini's report. It accepted that regulation 28 and the PNB guidance were PCPs, but held that the guidance exception did not itself create a substantial disadvantage requiring further adjustment. The steps proposed by the claimant, including maintaining full pay, maintaining half pay, and allowing ill-health retirement, were rejected as reasonable adjustments because they were not steps directed to enabling her to remain in work. The tribunal also noted that the PMAB on 24 February 2021 upheld Dr Iqbal's view that her depressive disorder did not permanently disable her from the ordinary duties of a police officer and said she was likely to return to work in 2 to 3 years.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 claim based on two alleged acts: reducing pay under regulation 28 of the Police Regulations 2003, and requiring annual leave while off sick. The tribunal accepted the pay reduction was unfavourable treatment arising from disability-related absence, but held the annual leave allegation was not proved as a requirement imposed by the respondent. It found the pay reduction was justified as a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of retaining officers on sick leave while managing public spending. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Reasonable adjustments claim under sections 20 and 21 EqA 2010. The tribunal found constructive knowledge of the claimant's mental health disability from January 2020 when the Dr Beaini report was received. It accepted regulation 28 of the Police Regulations 2003 and the PNB guidance as PCPs, but held that maintaining full pay, maintaining half pay, or allowing ill-health retirement were not reasonable adjustments in the circumstances. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability claim under section 26 EqA 2010, based on delay in referral to the SMP, repeated requests for medical information, delay in the ill-health retirement process, pay handling, and refusal to attend the PMAB in London. The tribunal held that although the conduct was unwanted and related to the ill-health retirement process, it did not have the purpose or effect required to amount to harassment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- Williams v Trustees of Swansea University on unfavourable treatment
- Pnaiser v NHS England causation approach
- Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire proportionality
- Hardys and Hansons plc v Lax balancing exercise
- Environment Agency v Rowan PCP/substantial disadvantage
- Ishola v Transport for London meaning of PCP
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal harassment guidance
- Pemberton v Inwood harassment guidance
- O'Hanlon v Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs on enhanced sick pay
- G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Ltd v Powell on pay as adjustment
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.