G Coyle and A Grant Ms L Palmer-Thomson v - Solicitor Scottish Police Authority — 2022

The claimant was a disabled employee with PTSD working as a Level 2 Scene Examiner. The respondent accepted that it applied a PCP requiring her to carry out the full duties of the role and accepted that this put her at a substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled workers, in that it increased the risk of absence and dismissal. The tribunal also accepted that the respondent knew of the disadvantage. The central issue was whether it was reasonable to take one of the steps suggested by the claimant, namely appointing her to either a Quality Lead role or a Scene Examination Lead role without competitive interview.

On time bar, the tribunal found that the relevant date for the April 2021 vacancies was 15 July 2021, when the claimant was told the respondent's position was final after earlier correspondence had indicated the matter was still being reconsidered. Applying early conciliation, the claim was therefore in time. The tribunal also noted the legal framework under sections 20, 21, 123 and 136 of the Equality Act 2010 and the authorities cited on reasonable adjustments, burden of proof and limitation.

The tribunal held that it was not a reasonable adjustment to appoint the claimant to either Quality Lead vacancy. It found that the role required extensive relevant quality management system knowledge and experience, that the claimant had experience of using the system but not of implementing or managing quality systems, and that training her up would have had a real adverse impact on a small team whose work was central to ISO17025 accreditation. The tribunal also rejected the submission that a trial period or further occupational health input would have made the step reasonable, concluding that the barrier was the claimant's lack of essential experience rather than a medical issue.

The tribunal likewise held that it would not have been reasonable to appoint the claimant to the Scene Examination Lead role. It found that the role still required attendance at major and minor crime scenes and exposure to material that could trigger the claimant's PTSD, and that the medical evidence available at the time indicated she was permanently unfit for her then current post and should be redeployed outwith the scenes department if possible. The tribunal concluded that the proposed appointment would not have avoided the disadvantage, and the claims were dismissed in full. No remedy was awarded.