Case 3323840/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Levy v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis — 2022
- Case reference
- 3323840/2021
- Decision date
- 27 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dobbie
- Panel members
- Mrs Knapton, Mrs Davies
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Levy
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a serving Police Sergeant, had asthma which was exacerbated after Covid-19 and was later diagnosed as COPD. He was placed in a temporary recuperative role in the Ops team, working from home on a 5-4-5 rotating pattern with reduced daily hours. Occupational Health advised recuperative duties and eight-hour days, but the tribunal found that the advice did not amount to clearance for a Monday to Friday full-time pattern without the claimant's consecutive rest days.
The tribunal found that Inspector Warren twice sought to change the claimant's roster to Monday to Friday, 7am to 3pm, without adequate consultation, without the required notice, and without obtaining or considering updated Occupational Health advice on the specific pattern. It found the second roster change was related to disability and created an intimidating and hostile environment for the claimant, so the harassment claim succeeded in respect of the roster-change acts.
The tribunal upheld victimisation in relation to the claimant being moved back to Team 1 after he had complained that the roster change was discriminatory. It found that the move was a detriment and that the claimant's protected acts had a significant influence on the decision. It did not uphold the allegation that Inspector Warren blocked restoration of the roster, finding insufficient evidence that she had done so. Remedy was reserved for later determination.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claims for breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments were dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Upheld in respect of the detriment of being moved back to Team 1, Met Detention in November 2021. The alleged detriment that Inspector Warren blocked restoration of the roster was not upheld. | Upheld | — | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability was upheld in respect of two acts concerning attempts to change the claimant's roster without notice, consultation and/or relevant occupational health material. The alleged act of moving the claimant back to Team 1 was not upheld as harassment because it had already been found to be victimisation. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The remaining s.15 Equality Act 2010 claims relied on the same acts as the harassment claims. The tribunal did not uphold them under s.15 because the acts had already succeeded as harassment and could not simultaneously be detriments under s.15 and harassment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Villalba v Merrill Lynch
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- Reed v Stedman
- Thomas Sanderson Blinds Ltd v English
- Hartley v Foreign and Commonwealth Office Services
- EHRC Employment Code para 7.10
- Tees Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust v Aslam
- s.212 Equality Act 2010
- s.39 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.