Member J Gallacher Tribunal Member F Paton Mr M Shaw v The Chief Constable of the Police Service — 2024

The claimant, a Police Sergeant disabled by haemochromatosis, Hashimoto’s autoimmune condition and complex PTSD, applied for permanent promotion to Inspector through the National Police Promotions Process. He had passed the sift stage and sought to be assessed in post for a year, or alternatively to be given advance notice of the broad area of each scenario, because he said the assessment centre would be affected by his reduced cognitive processing, fatigue and memory difficulties. The respondent refused the in-post assessment but offered adjustments including a local venue, spreading the assessment over several days, longer preparation time and longer response time, and later a broad advance outline of the scenario areas.

On indirect disability discrimination under s.19 Equality Act 2010, the tribunal held that the respondent did not apply a PCP requiring a large amount of preparatory work outside working hours, although it did apply PCPs requiring candidates to respond to three prepared scenarios in a timed environment and to face a scenario focused on a major incident. The tribunal accepted the respondent’s aim of selecting suitable candidates through a transparent, comparative and, where necessary, competitive process, and noted that no merit line was drawn in the relevant year. It found no group disadvantage proved for the timed-scenario and major-incident PCPs, and therefore dismissed the indirect discrimination complaint.

On reasonable adjustments under ss.20 and 21 Equality Act 2010, the tribunal accepted that the respondent knew or ought reasonably to have known of the claimant’s disability and likely disadvantage. It found that the package of adjustments offered by the respondent had a good prospect of removing the disadvantage by giving more time, more location flexibility and more preparation opportunity, and it considered the claimant likely to have passed with those adjustments. By contrast, the claimant’s proposed adjustments of assessment in post for a year and advance disclosure of scenario areas were held not to be reasonable because they would undermine the NPPP’s transparent, consistent, comparative and competitive structure and would give him an unfair advantage. Both complaints were dismissed and no monetary award was made.