Ms F A Alexander v Represented by: Mr R Clarke - Solicitor Scottish Police Authority — 2025

Ms Alexander was accepted to be disabled by reason of anxiety and depression, and the respondent accepted it knew or could reasonably have been expected to know of that disability from 22 February 2024. The case concerned a reasonable adjustments complaint centred on six PCPs and twelve proposed adjustments, grouped by the tribunal into personal contact restrictions, grievance management, return-to-work practicalities and sick pay. The principal complaint was that the respondent should have instructed a list of named managers and colleagues to minimise contact with her and communicate in writing unless operationally necessary.

The tribunal held that the PCP requiring Ms Alexander to work with the individuals involved in the 2020 case did place her at a substantial disadvantage, because the prospect of interaction worsened her anxiety and meant that, without contact restrictions, she would not have been fit to return to work during the material period. It also held that the respondent knew or should have known of that disadvantage in relation to the 2020 six, relying in particular on Dr D's 22 February 2024 report and earlier evidence of Ms Alexander's reaction in 2023. However, it was not persuaded that the respondent had knowledge or constructive knowledge that interaction with the wider group named in the December 2023 grievance would put her at the same disadvantage.

The tribunal then found that the adjustment sought was not objectively reasonable. The requested instruction extended beyond the 2020 six to twelve people, would have required a blunt management instruction without being able to explain the underlying context because of Ms Alexander's confidentiality requests, and would likely have caused difficulties, complaints and morale issues for the affected staff. It also sat uneasily with the 2021 COT3 settlement, under which Ms Alexander had agreed not to re-raise or pursue future concerns relating to the earlier complaints. Because the contact-restriction adjustment was the fundamental adjustment, the tribunal held that the remaining proposed steps, including an independent grievance investigator, safe management plan measures, accompaniment at meetings, documented meetings, stress risk assessment, phased return, refresher training, monthly updates and full sick pay, did not establish a separate breach. The claim was therefore dismissed.