Claimant v The Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police — 2024

The claimant was a police officer whose accepted disabilities were complex PTSD, PTSD, anxiety and/or depression. Her case concerned the respondent's use of the UPAP, UAP and UPP, together with misconduct processes and related support measures. The tribunal identified the reasonable-adjustments complaints as PCPs of applying the unsatisfactory performance and attendance policy, applying the misconduct process, and applying those processes concurrently.

On the reasonable-adjustments complaints, the tribunal found that the claimant had not shown the PCPs placed her at a substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled officers. It also found that the respondent did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, of the alleged disadvantage. The suggested adjustments were not accepted as reasonable, including the suggestion that the policies should not be applied or progressed. Those complaints were dismissed.

The discrimination arising from disability complaints were also dismissed. The tribunal held that the MRAG allegations from 2016 and 2017 were too old and, in any event, it could not follow the argument that the claimed lack of support under MRAG was treatment because of something arising from disability. It found that the 2021 neighbour incident was investigated, that any criticism of the investigation did not support a finding of unlawful discrimination, and that the later reflective-practice outcome was supportive and either not unfavourable treatment or justified. It also found that the August 2021 investigation concerned drinking on duty and lying to a line manager, which did not arise from disability, and that the final written warning and appeal rejection were not discriminatory.

The tribunal held that the informal performance and attendance measures begun in June 2022, the supportive recovery plan, the recommendation to complete a wellness action plan, the involvement of different managers, the claimant's own ill-health retirement application, and the referral to a stage 3 UAP meeting were not unlawful discrimination. It accepted the respondent's legitimate aims, including assisting health and wellbeing, holding officers to high standards, protecting the public, and ensuring effective policing, and concluded that the relevant steps were appropriate and necessary. It noted that acts before 18 November 2022 would be outside the ordinary limitation period unless part of a continuing act, but said it did not need to decide limitation because the claims failed on liability. All claims were dismissed and the provisional remedy hearing was vacated.