Member J Lindsay Tribunal Member C Russell Mrs Neelam Puri v Represented by: Mr D James, Advocate Instructed by: Mr C Harrington, Solicitor Scottish Police Authority — 2026

Mrs Neelam Puri worked for the Scottish Police Authority as a Public Enquiry Support Assistant from 17 October 2022 until she resigned on 11 July 2025. The tribunal accepted that she was disabled for the whole period material to the case, with bilateral planovalgus affecting her feet and ankles, and that the respondent knew of that. It held that complaints relating to events before 17 January 2024 were out of time, that there was no conduct extending over a period, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time.

On race-related complaints, the tribunal accepted that Mr Martin made a Ku Klux Klan remark on 18 August 2023, and that the claimant had been excluded from an Aberdeen WhatsApp group, but it held the race harassment claim failed because the group issue was outside jurisdiction once she moved to Stonehaven, the conduct was not shown to be related to race, and the claimant did not treat the matter as a formal grievance at the time. The 'mean biryani' remark was treated as a compliment rather than harassment. The direct race discrimination complaint also failed: the tribunal rejected that her complaints were not taken seriously because of race, and held that Gavin Crawford was not a true comparator.

The tribunal found the 'blonde moment' comment on 6 November 2023 was unwanted and related to sex, but it did not meet the section 26 effect test and did not create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The victimisation claim also failed. The tribunal held that only the 23 August 2023 Ku Klux Klan complaint and the 27 February 2024 reasonable-adjustments request were protected acts, but none of the alleged detriments were caused by those acts; it accepted that the managers were trying to address the claimant's concerns rather than retaliate.

The disability reasonable-adjustments claim succeeded only in relation to the Stonehaven front counter. The tribunal found the counter was a physical feature, that a seated arrangement would be an auxiliary aid, and that the claimant was substantially disadvantaged because she had to stand for periods that caused pain. It held that the respondent should have assessed and implemented a practical adjustment to lower the counter, rather than relying on Access to Work, but dismissed the separate allegations about the shift pattern and limited sick pay. It found no financial loss attributable to the counter issue, so the award was limited to £2,000 for injury to feelings plus £293.34 interest. It also commented that the respondent's use of SCoPE and Access to Work should be reconsidered, although it made no recommendation.