Mrs H Lee v Chief Constable of Essex Police — 2020

The tribunal heard claims of direct sex discrimination, direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and harassment by reference to sex and disability arising from the claimant's work in the Serious Collision Investigation Unit. It accepted that Mrs H Lee was disabled by longstanding depression, anxiety and stress-related symptoms, but it did not accept that her fibroids, PCOS or menopausal symptoms amounted to a disability during the material period. The tribunal also found that some of the more extreme behaviours relied on by the claimant were not known to the respondent as symptoms of her disability.

Allegations 1-3, concerning events in January, March and July 2018, were held to be out of time under s.123 Equality Act 2010, and the tribunal refused to extend time on the just and equitable basis. In dealing with the remaining allegations, it applied the burden of proof approach under s.136 and Igen v Wong, and it accepted the respondent's reliance on City of York Council v Grosset when analysing the s.15 claims. The tribunal drew a distinction between disagreements about management, supervision and workplace friction, and treatment shown to be because of sex, disability, or something arising from disability.

The tribunal dismissed the remaining allegations, including the refusal of Taser training, the temporary removal of FLO duties, the wording of the occupational health referral, the alleged cold shouldering after February 2019, the PSD referral arising from the 1 February 2019 altercation, the decision to pursue formal misconduct action in relation to the claimant but not DS High, and the response to her request for a half day off to attend a Headways course. It found the Taser and FLO decisions were linked to limited duties and workload, the OH referral was intended as a supportive measure, any reduced contact was explained by professional and personal circumstances rather than discriminatory treatment, and the severity assessment led to management action for both officers. The final judgment dismissed the claims of sex discrimination, disability discrimination and harassment.