Case 2504262/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Phillips v Chief Constable of Durham Police — 2021
- Case reference
- 2504262/2019
- Decision date
- 22 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jeram
- Venue
- via CVP at Newcastle
- Panel members
- Ms L Jackson, Ms E Wiles
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Phillips
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mrs A Phillips was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 at all material times, with generalised anxiety disorder, and that the Chief Constable of Durham Police knew or ought reasonably to have known of that disability. The claimant was absent from 20 April 2018 and remained off work until she was medically retired on 12 August 2019. She received full sick pay for the first six months, and the respondent then exercised discretion to extend full pay until 1 February 2019 before reducing pay to half rate. The tribunal accepted that the claimant ultimately sought ill health retirement and that the respondent later accepted the Selected Medical Practitioner’s recommendation that she was permanently disabled from performing the duties of a police officer.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 claim concerning the decision to pay the claimant half pay from 1 February 2019 to 15 July 2019 and the refusal to return her to full pay or reimburse the alleged shortfall. The tribunal accepted that half pay was unfavourable treatment arising from disability, but held that the claimant had no legal or other basis for an expectation of full pay during the relevant period and that the respondent had established proportionality in any event. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claim. The tribunal found that the first alleged PCP, an automatic drop to half pay after six months' sick leave, was not proved. The alternative PCP was framed so as to include the individual review and discretionary features of the sick pay scheme, so the claimant had not identified a satisfactory PCP demonstrating the relevant disadvantage. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment claim based on the 24 June 2019 clarification letter and the consideration of junior civilian roles for the claimant. The tribunal held there was no jurisdiction to consider the pleaded acts as advanced in the list of issues, and alternatively found the conduct was not unwanted conduct and did not have the required effect under section 26. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- Pnaiser v NHS England
- Williams v The Trustees of Swansea University Pension & Assurance Scheme
- Buchanan v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
- Hardys and Hansons plc v Lax
- Environment Agency v Rowan
- Finnigan v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police
- General Dynamics v Carranza
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal
- Pemberton v Inwood
- Chapman v Simon
- R v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis ex parte Weed
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.