Mr C Scott v Represented by Mr D Jaap, Solicitor The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland — 2026

The tribunal dismissed Mr C Scott's two complaints of discrimination arising from disability against the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland. The respondent accepted that he was disabled because of dyslexia and anxiety/depression. Although the claim initially included a failure to make reasonable adjustments, the agreed issues were confined to section 15 of the Equality Act. Mr Scott had struggled with the written and organisational demands of his role. An April 2025 occupational health report recommended a gradual return to an adjusted or alternative role with support.

The first complaint concerned the allegation that Mr Scott was offered only demotion from Sergeant to Constable or dismissal on capability grounds. The tribunal found that the Duty Modifications Panel's decision, read to him on 20 June 2025, proposed a discussion about the option of returning to a Constable role. It accepted Inspector Kirk's evidence that this option had already been discussed and Mr Scott had neither agreed to it nor rejected it. When his representative asked what would happen if he declined, Ms Herald said a capability procedure would likely have to be considered. Dismissal was not mentioned. Demotion could not be imposed in these circumstances, and Mr Scott could, and did, reject the option. The tribunal found no disadvantage or unfavourable treatment.

The tribunal also held that, even if unfavourable treatment had been established, discussing an option previously raised and not ruled out was proportionate to the legitimate aim of exploring how officers on long periods of sickness absence could return to work. The respondent conceded that the relevant absence arose in consequence of disability. The tribunal accepted that the Panel envisaged the case returning to it whatever the outcome of the discussion. A further referral was considered in November 2025 after the misconduct proceedings had concluded and Mr Scott had provided more positive information about returning to practical work. A suitable post was identified in April 2026, and he returned on 25 May 2026.

The second complaint concerned the appointment of a Welfare Officer under a COT3 agreement resolving an earlier claim. The agreement provided for an officer with knowledge or experience of neurodiversity to give additional support during employment. Mr Scott argued that this support should have been provided while he was absent. The tribunal found that the agreement concerned support at work, where he felt previous managers had not understood his neurodiversity. It considered that the support required could not be identified until his return role was known. It also noted that neither Mr Scott nor his representative had raised the issue before 2 July 2025.

Chief Inspector Samantha Harlow-McGuinness, who had relevant knowledge and experience, was appointed in April 2026 and met Mr Scott before his return. The tribunal therefore found no failure to provide the agreed officer. It also found no disadvantage from waiting until his return was approaching: there was no evidence that an earlier appointment would have enabled an earlier return, or of any impact from the absence of that additional support while he was off sick. Alternatively, the timing was proportionate to the legitimate aim of providing suitable workplace support when required.