EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) In the Employment Tribunal Scotland at Edinburgh Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Case No. 8001440/2024 heard at Edinburgh on 12, 13, & May 2026 with deliberation on and May 2026 Employment Judge J G d’Inverno S Thompson v Represented by Mr D Jaap, Solicitor The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland — 2026

The claimant, Sarah Thompson, served as a Police Constable under the direction and control of the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland and worked in the Criminal Justice Services Division, People and Development training team. For the purposes of the hearing it was agreed that, at the material time, she was disabled under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 by anxiety and depression. She pursued complaints of direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, harassment related to disability and victimisation for the period 18 December 2023 to 21 August 2024.

The Tribunal dismissed the direct disability discrimination complaints. It found that the Occupational Health referral contained an erroneous statement about the claimant being unable to drive after 1900 hours, but the claimant had not proved that the statement was deliberately or dishonestly false, or that she was treated less favourably because of disability. The allegations that she was required to deliver training in person, excluded from social events, asked to rearrange an Occupational Health appointment, or required to attend a police office without proper notice were not established as direct discrimination; one issue about language in Teams meetings was struck out.

The Tribunal also dismissed the section 15 discrimination arising from disability complaints. The driving statement in the Occupational Health referral crossed the threshold for unfavourable treatment, but the Tribunal held that it was not treatment because of something arising in consequence of the claimant's disability, since neither her disability nor medication caused an inability to drive after 1900 hours. The allegations that she was required to work in person and that she was deliberately blocked from progressing her My Career appraisal were not proved. In the alternative, the Tribunal would have found that including relevant health information in a single Occupational Health referral was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The reasonable adjustments complaint was dismissed. The Tribunal found no PCP of requiring postponement of the My Career process. Although the respondent did have a PCP requiring non-disabled training team members to attend in person to deliver training, that PCP was not applied to the claimant because she was allowed to work remotely on modified duties. The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence that the pleaded PCPs caused the substantial disadvantage alleged by the claimant.

The Tribunal upheld one complaint of harassment related to disability. By 1 April 2024 the respondent had agreed an adjustment that the claimant should receive seven days' notice of any request to attend a police station, but that adjustment had not been uploaded to SCOPE and PS Soutar was unaware of it. When he asked the claimant, on four days' notice, to attend Glenrothes Police Office on 20 April 2024 to assist with an urgent office move, he did not have the purpose of creating an intimidating environment, and the claimant did not attend. However, because the agreed adjustment appeared to the claimant to have been disregarded, the Tribunal held that it was reasonable for her to perceive the request as creating an intimidating environment. Other harassment allegations, including alleged postponement of My Career and inclusion in a laptop-updating rota communication, were dismissed.