Mr D McFarlane and Ms E Farrell Ms D Strathern v Represented by: Ms E Strathern - Lay Representative The Chief Constable of the Police Service — 2024

The claimant applied in August 2023 to be appointed as a police constable. She disclosed a history of depression and anxiety and underwent the respondent's medical assessment process through Optima, including a questionnaire, occupational health review and further assessment by Dr Dobrowolska. After correspondence with the claimant's GP and psychiatrist, Dr Dobrowolska concluded that the claimant was not fit for the role at that time and should be deferred for two years, and the respondent then confirmed that the application would not progress further.

On the s15 claim, the tribunal accepted that the respondent's decision not to recruit the claimant was unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, but held that the respondent had shown objective justification. The tribunal found that the legitimate aim was to ensure that police constables were medically fit to perform the role so that colleagues and the public were not put at risk. It held that the Police Service of Scotland Regulations 2013 required certification by an approved medical practitioner and that, once the force medical adviser concluded the claimant was not fit at that time, the respondent had no lawful alternative but to refuse appointment.

On the s19 claim, the tribunal found that the PCP requiring applicants to submit to a medical assessment involving a health questionnaire during a consultation with an occupational health adviser was also justified. It accepted that some form of assessment was necessary to meet the statutory requirement for medical certification and held that the claimant's proposed alternative of a telephone consultation would not have avoided the disadvantage complained of, because applicants who were not certified fit would still have been refused appointment.

On the reasonable adjustments claim, the tribunal held that the proposed adjustments were not reasonable. It found that obtaining a second medical opinion, allowing time to obtain a report from the claimant's psychiatrist, or allowing attendance on the training course before a final decision would either have required the respondent to act unlawfully under the Police Service Regulations or would not have been shown to avoid the disadvantage. The tribunal therefore held that there was no breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments and dismissed all Equality Act claims as not well-founded.