Case 3313535/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Collett v The Chief Constable Of Hertfordshire Constabulary — 2019
- Case reference
- 3313535/2019
- Decision date
- 8 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Manley
- Venue
- Watford and CVP
- Panel members
- Mr Bean, Mr Chapman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Collett
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Collett was a police constable and operational firearms officer who was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in December 2015. The tribunal found that he was a disabled person at all material times. After diagnosis he was removed from firearms and Class 2/response driving duties, and the respondent’s force medical advisor, Dr Andrea Junker, applied the Faculty of Occupational Medicine’s "Blue Light" Guidance to both response driving and firearms work because she regarded firearms duties as at least as safety-critical.
On the reasonable-adjustments complaint under ss20 and 21 Equality Act 2010, the tribunal held that the respondent’s medical standards and the "Blue Light" parameters were PCPs and that they placed Mr Collett at a substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled officers, because he could not always keep his readings within the required range. It nevertheless found no breach. The tribunal concluded that it was not reasonable to set aside the guidance or raise the upper limit to 15 mmol/l, and later accepted that the 2019 protocol, including CGM monitoring and an offered trial period, was a reasonable way to manage the safety-critical roles.
On the s15 claim, the tribunal accepted that removing Mr Collett from operational, firearms and driving duties was unfavourable treatment and that the treatment arose from matters consequent on his disability, including his blood glucose control, insulin use, diet and monitoring. It nevertheless held that the respondent had shown a legitimate aim of safety for the claimant, colleagues and the public, and that the means adopted were proportionate in light of the medical advice and the safety-critical nature of the roles.
The harassment claim under s26 failed. The tribunal rejected most of the alleged unwanted conduct as not made out or as not attributable to Dr Junker in the way pleaded, and held that any conduct it could potentially identify did not violate dignity or create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. All claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments under ss20-21 Equality Act 2010; the tribunal found PCPs and substantial disadvantage, but held the respondent did not fail to make reasonable adjustments. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability under s15 Equality Act 2010; the tribunal accepted unfavourable treatment and the disability link, but found the treatment proportionate to a legitimate aim. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment under s26 Equality Act 2010; most alleged incidents were not made out, and the tribunal found no conduct meeting the statutory test. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.20 Equality Act 2010
- s.21 Equality Act 2010
- Tarbuck v Sainsburys Supermarkets Ltd
- Environment Agency v Rowan
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- Basildon and Thurrock NHS Foundation Trust v Weerasinghe
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- Grant v HM Land Registry and another
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
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.