Mr T Claxton, Claimant’s Husband. For the v Respondent — 2018

The tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaints that she was the victim of disability discrimination and suffered unlawful deductions from her wages. The claimant was an insulin-dependent diabetic and the respondent accepted that she was disabled within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. The dispute arose after she sought changes to her PCSO duties in late 2017, when occupational health advised that she needed fixed daytime hours, consistent breaks and limited driving, and the respondent then moved her into medical redeployment.

On indirect discrimination, the tribunal found that the respondent had a PCP requiring neighbourhood PCSOs to work shifts up to midnight, and that this applied to all staff in that role. It accepted that the requirement could disadvantage the claimant, but held that the respondent had shown a legitimate aim and proportionality: the police service had reviewed community policing arrangements, reduced the number of neighbourhood officers, increased the burden on PCSOs and concluded that later evening and weekend working was needed to address anti-social behaviour and serve the public efficiently.

The tribunal rejected the other two discrimination arguments. It held that the driving point was not a PCP at all, but a claimant-specific occupational health recommendation made in relation to her own circumstances, and that there was no evidence that a requirement to drive for more than 30 minutes applied to other PCSOs. It also found that Scene Guard duties were part of the core, reactive role of a neighbourhood PCSO, that no group disadvantage had been proved, and that excusing the claimant from those duties would in any event have been proportionate.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal accepted that the requirement to work outside 7am to 7pm placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage, but it found no reasonable step that the respondent could have been expected to take. It accepted the respondent's evidence that allowing her to work only daytime hours on a permanent basis would unduly burden other PCSOs and would not meet the needs of the service. The tribunal also found no evidence of bias or undue influence by Inspector Rayfield and concluded that the capability and medical redeployment process had been handled fairly and appropriately.