Case 4102920/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Loading page content.
TopCase 4102920/2019 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case no 4102920/2019 Held at Edinburgh on 20, 21, and November 2019 Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn Tribunal Members: Mr S Gray Mr T Lithgow Mr Simon White
The claimant was a police constable and sergeant who had previously been diagnosed with moderate depression in 2014 and had his authorised firearms officer status temporarily withdrawn, then reinstated in May 2015. He brought a claim of direct discrimination by perception, alleging that the respondent perceived him to have a disabled mental impairment and treated him less favourably when dealing with his return to firearms duties after his absence for work-related stress in 2018.
The alleged less favourable treatment was identified as: a refusal on 29 November 2018 to let him return to non-live fire training, a reference to his 2014 absence in a reinstatement request on 12 December 2018, a second referral to Optima on 14 January 2019, and a request on 21 January 2019 that Optima consider additional management information including a reference to depression. The tribunal accepted that Pi Findlay and Pi Hepburn were aware of the 2014 depression and the 2018 work-related stress absence, but found that this did not mean they believed the claimant had a mental impairment meeting the statutory definition of disability.
Applying sections 6, 13 and 23 of the Equality Act 2010, and referring to Chief Constable of Norfolk v Coffey, the tribunal held that PI Hepburn had become concerned that there might be a mental health issue, but that concern was not the same as a belief that the claimant did in fact have a mental impairment. The tribunal also found no less favourable treatment, noting that the language in the flexible working application would have caused concern regardless of any perceived disability, and that the comparator advanced by the claimant, Mr Reid, was not apt because his arthritis in the knees was a material difference in circumstances.
The tribunal concluded that, even if PI Findlay had refused the request to return to non-live fire training, that was not because he perceived the claimant to be disabled, and that the reference to the 2014 absence in the reinstatement request was not consistent with a perception that the claimant had a disability. The claim of unlawful disability discrimination was therefore dismissed and no award or recommendation was made.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claimant alleged direct discrimination by perception under section 13 EqA 2010, arising from events on 29 November 2018, 12 December 2018, 14 January 2019 and 21 January 2019. The tribunal held that the respondent did not perceive him to have a mental impairment within section 6 EqA 2010 and did not treat him less favourably because of disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
The 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.
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.