Mrs K Sandever v Represented by Mr S Smith Solicitor Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland — 2026

Mrs Karen Sandever served as a Police Constable and Viper Co-ordinator. The respondent admitted that she was disabled by anxiety and depression and accepted knowledge of her disability from 30 April 2021. She brought direct and indirect discrimination claims based on sex and disability, a disability-related reasonable-adjustments claim, and harassment claims related to sex and disability.

The Tribunal found that supervising officers did not compel trained officers to undertake Viper duties requested by Mrs Sandever, although it did not find an insufficient number of trained operators. The direct sex discrimination claim failed because there was no sufficient connection between that treatment and sex; in particular, Mr Andrew Card experienced similar refusals when undertaking comparable Viper work, and the other proposed comparators were in materially different circumstances. The direct disability discrimination claim also failed because the difficulties had arisen before Mrs Sandever became disabled or the respondent acquired knowledge of her disability, and no facts established that disability caused the treatment.

For indirect discrimination, the Tribunal accepted a practice of not compelling officers to attend Viper parades organised by Mrs Sandever, but held that the pleaded PCP was not applied to her because she was the Co-ordinator rather than an operator being asked to attend. No particular group disadvantage based on sex was proved. In its alternative analysis of disability disadvantage, the Tribunal accepted that the resulting stress could particularly disadvantage someone with anxiety and depression, but found the practice objectively justified as a proportionate means of achieving the efficient delivery of policing, having regard to finite resources, changing operational priorities, flexibility and the command structure.

The reasonable-adjustments claim failed because the pleaded PCP—Mrs Sandever repeatedly asking for support—described her own conduct rather than a PCP applied by the respondent. The Tribunal alternatively found that compelling operators to attend or allocating the additional resources sought was not a reasonable adjustment. It also found, on the alternative hypothesis that a relevant PCP applied, that it would have been reasonable not to intimate on 13 January 2022 that she would return to uniform duties without first addressing the Occupational Health advice, her modified duties and Disability Passport; that alternative finding did not establish the pleaded reasonable-adjustments claim.

The harassment allegations were not found to be related to sex. The Tribunal did, however, find that the manner in which the 13 January 2022 meeting was conducted amounted to harassment related to disability under s.26 Equality Act 2010. The meeting intimated changes to Mrs Sandever's duties without adequate engagement with her known disability, the unreviewed modified duties, and the full Occupational Health information. The other alleged matters concerning the grievances, appeal, buddy meeting and record-keeping did not satisfy the statutory harassment test.