Case 3203055/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Rose v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis — 2021
- Case reference
- 3203055/2019
- Decision date
- 13 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McLaren Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms J Clark, Mr L Bowman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Rose
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by the respondent until her resignation on 22 November 2019 and brought disability discrimination claims arising from contact during a period of sickness absence in August to October 2019. The respondent conceded disability by anxiety, depression and osteoarthritis, but disputed whether menopause was also a disability. The tribunal found the claimant had not provided evidence that menopause had an adverse effect on her ability to carry out day-to-day activities at the material time.
The direct discrimination complaints concerned sickness absence contact, a home visit, a comment about feeling better after returning to a police station, and an invitation to a case conference. The tribunal found that Mr Lowe was acting in accordance with the absence management policy, that the home visit and follow-up contact did not show a failure to take the claimant seriously, and that the accepted comment on 14 October was intended as supportive and was not because of disability. It also found that the case conference invitation was a supportive step and that a hypothetical comparator would have been treated the same way.
For the s.15 claim, the tribunal accepted that the claimant's sickness absence arose from disability, but found that Mr Lowe did not demand that she communicate with him and that he checked whether she was available before calling. In the alternative, it found the contact was justified as a proportionate means of achieving the respondent's legitimate aims in managing sickness absence and supporting return to work.
The harassment complaints concerned a short call by Mr Christoforou on 26 September and Mr Lowe's contact in early October. The tribunal found that Mr Christoforou made the call to obtain information the respondent was entitled to have, and that Mr Lowe's contact was about fit notes, a catch-up and arranging the case conference rather than repeated questioning about return to work. It concluded that the claims failed in their entirety.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination claim dismissed. The tribunal found that some alleged conduct was not established as pleaded, that the 14 October comment was not made because of disability, and that the case conference invitation was not less favourable treatment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability under s.15 Equality Act 2010 dismissed. The tribunal found that Mr Lowe contacted the claimant during sickness absence but did not demand engagement, and stated in the alternative that the contact was justified as a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability dismissed. The tribunal found that the alleged conduct by Mr Christoforou and Mr Lowe was not established as pleaded and, in any event, it was not reasonable for the claimant to perceive the contact as creating an intimidating or hostile environment amounting to harassment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 paragraph 2 Equality Act 2010
- Cruickshank v VAW Motorcast Ltd
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- Igen v Wong Ltd
- Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
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.