Mr D Warburton v Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police: 3306357/2020
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 August 2023 |
| Date | 22 August 2023 |
| Published date | 04 October 2023 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
| Citation | 3306357/2020 |
Case No: 3306357/2020
10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 62 March 2017
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr D Warburton
Respondent: Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police
Heard at: Bury St Edmunds
On: 17, 18, 19 July 2023 (via CVP)
In Chambers: 31 July and 1 August 2023
Before: Employment Judge Graham
Members: Ms H Edwards and Mr Doyle
Representation
Claimant: In person
Respondent: Ms Von Wachter, Counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The unanimous decision of the Employment Tribunal is that:
1. The complaint of victimisation fails and is dismissed.
2. The complaint of discrimination arising from disability fails and is dismissed.
3. The complaint of failure to implement reasonable adjustments fails and is
dismissed.
REASONS
Claim
1. The Respondent is a large police force with approximately 1,300 police
officers. By a claim form presented on 3 July 2020, the Claimant brings
complaints of disability discrimination (for reasonable adjustments and
discrimination for something arising in consequence of disability) and
victimisation. The claim concerns the decision to refuse the Claimant vetting
clearance to join as a police officer.
2. By ET3 Response dated 23 October 2022, and a re-pleaded defence of 15
February 2023 the Respondent has denied the claim.
Issues
Case No: 3306357/2020
10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 62 March 2017
2
3. A private preliminary hearing for case management took place on 22 July
2022 before Employment Judge Dobbie. The issues between the parties
which fall to be determined by this Tribunal were discussed and agreed with
both parties at the hearing. Further clarification of the issues (specifically
the reasonable adjustments) was provided by the Claimant’s solicitors on
11 August 2022 and an updated list of issues was produced on 23 January
2023.
Disability
1. At all or any material time(s) was the Claimant disabled by reason of
anxiety and depression within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010
(EqA)? Specifically:
(a) Did he have a mental impairment?
(b) If so, were the effects substantial and affect his day-to-day
activities?
(c) If so, were the effects long term?
Victimisation – S.27 Equality Act 2010
2. The Respondent concedes that the Claimant did a protected act by
bringing discrimination proceedings against Hertfordshire Police
Constabulary in separate employment tribunal proceedings in 2017 and
2018 (which were determined at a hearing in February 2021).
3. Did the Respondents do any or all of the following acts / omissions:
(a) Mr Lamb considered as part of the vetting process ‘multiple
instances’ where the Claimant’s interactions ‘fell way short of the
standards’ of somebody wishing to become a police officer and
describing his communications as ‘derogatory and offensive’.
(b) Mr Lamb considered as part of the vetting process ‘Many complaints,
various attempts of litigation, and a pending employment tribunal’ by the
Claimant after his rejection by Herts Police force.
(c) Mr Lamb attempting to rely on irrelevant factors when rejecting the
Claimant’s vetting.
(d) Rejecting the Claimant’s vetting clearance and his application
consequently being rejected.
4. If so:
(a) Was such treatment detrimental?
(b) Was such act / omission done because of the protected act?
Discrimination arising from disability – S.15 Equality Act 2010
5. Was the Respondent aware of the Claimant’s disability or ought it have
reasonably been aware of the Claimant’s disability?
Case No: 3306357/2020
10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 62 March 2017
3
6. Was the tone and language of the Claimant’s communications with the
Respondent’s staff as set out at paragraph 20-22 of the Respondent’s
response ‘something’ which arose in consequence of his disability?
7. Did the Respondent do any or all of the following acts?:
(a) Mr Lamb considering as part of the vetting process multiple
instances’ where the Claimant’s interactions ‘fell way short of the
standards’ of somebody wishing to become a police officer and
describing his communications as ‘derogatory and offensive’.
(b) Rejecting the Claimant’s vetting clearance.
(c) Rejecting the Claimant’s application for employment.
8. With regard to each act identified in paragraph 7:
(a) Did the act amount to unfavourable treatment; and
(b) Was it done because of something arising in consequence of his
disability?
9. If so, was the treatment a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate
aim? The Respondent’s legitimate aim is: to recruit individuals who will
become well conducted police officers.
Failure to make reasonable adjustments – s.21 Equality Act 2010
10. Was the Respondent aware of the Claimant’s disability or ought it have
reasonably been aware of the Claimant’s disability?
11. Did the Respondents impose the PCP identified at paragraph 27 of the
Particulars of Claim, namely was it a requirement for recruitment for
applicants not to be ‘offensive and derogatory’ to members of the
Respondent’s staff?
12. Did the PCP put the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage in
comparison with persons who were not disabled, namely, by rejecting
his vetting and consequently rejecting his application for employment?
13. Did the Respondent know, or ought the Respondent have known, that
the Claimant was likely to be affected by being placed at that substantial
disadvantage?
14. Did the Respondent fail to take such steps as it was reasonable to take,
in all the circumstances of the case, in order to prevent the PCP having
that effect? Specifically by Mr Lamb of the Respondent should have
either:
(a) Disregarded the Claimants communications which were deemed
to be offensive, and the derogatory for the purpose of vetting;
(b) Lowered the threshold that was being applied to the PCP in order
that the Claimant’s communications were not sufficient to amount to a
reason for failing vetting; or
To continue reading
Request your trial