Mr Matthew Hill v Chief Constable of Derbyshire Police — 2024

The tribunal found that Mr Hill was a disabled person at the material time, but it rejected his claim that the Respondent's use of the Unsatisfactory Performance and Attendance process placed him at a substantial disadvantage requiring reasonable adjustments. The tribunal accepted that the Police (Performance) Regulations 2020 and the Respondent's UAP amounted to a provision, criterion or practice, but held that Mr Hill was not shown to be substantially disadvantaged compared with non-disabled officers. It found that the Respondent had already taken supportive steps before formal action, including occupational health referrals, regular contact, a transfer to a quieter station, offers of personal support, and opportunities to discuss return to work.

The tribunal held that the UAP was applied flexibly rather than rigidly. It found that Stage 1 was not commenced until Mr Hill had been absent for approaching three months, that the first and second return-to-work dates were agreed with him, and that Stage 2 was delayed and did not lead immediately to dismissal. The tribunal accepted that the process led to funding for CBT, further treatment, extensions to sick pay, and eventually medical retirement rather than dismissal. On that basis, it concluded that commencing and progressing through the UAP did not place him at a substantial disadvantage, and that the steps proposed by Mr Hill would not have alleviated the disadvantage because he was not able to return to work.

On the s.15 Equality Act 2010 claim, the tribunal accepted that the treatment relied on had occurred, but again held that the overall operation of the UAP was not unfavourable in the relevant sense because it ultimately resulted in medical retirement, which the claimant wanted by late 2021, rather than dismissal. The tribunal also found that, if it had been necessary to do so, the Respondent had legitimate aims in managing attendance, supporting return to work, understanding employees' needs, and meeting operational requirements, and that the measures taken were proportionate. Both claims were therefore dismissed.