Case 3301892/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs P Smith v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis — 2020
- Case reference
- 3301892/2023
- Decision date
- 29 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge French
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Ms S Boot, Ms S Johnstone
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs P Smith
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mrs P Smith, brought complaints against the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis alleging direct race, age and sex discrimination, indirect sex discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments and harassment related to disability. The matter was heard before Employment Judge French sitting with Ms S Boot and Ms S Johnstone over six days in January 2026 with two further days for deliberation in February 2026. The respondent conceded disability. Preliminary applications by the claimant to give evidence in private and to adjourn for further witnesses were refused.
The Tribunal dismissed each complaint on the merits. On the alleged toilet-related matters, the Tribunal found that the claimant had been informed of alternative toilet provisions rather than told to use them, that a timing exercise on 6 October 2022 had occurred at the suggestion of her union representative and was not unwanted conduct, and that the claimant's use of the men's toilets was a consequence of her medical condition and the limits of available facilities rather than conduct by the respondent. The Tribunal accepted that the consequences of the claimant's condition were degrading and humiliating for her, but concluded these were not attributable to the respondent's actions for the purposes of s.26.
Because each complaint failed on the merits, the Tribunal did not determine the time-limit issues. No remedies were awarded. The £21,000 figure flagged at Layer 1 does not appear in the visible portion of the judgment as an award and may relate to background or pleaded matters rather than any sum ordered; this should be verified against the full PDF.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination complaint not well-founded. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination complaint not well-founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination complaint not well-founded. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | Indirect sex discrimination complaint not well-founded. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability (s.15 EqA) not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments complaint not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability complaint not well-founded; tribunal considered the s.26 environment test. | Dismissed | Disability |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Selkent Bus Company v Moore
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership [2021] ICR 535
- Cocking v Sandhurst (Stationers) Ltd [1974] ICR 650
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- rule 49 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
- rule 32 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
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.