Mr Daniel Gardner v The Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire Constabulary: 3332310/2018
| Judgment Date | 12 December 2019 |
| Date | 12 December 2019 |
| Citation | 3332310/2018 |
| Published date | 09 January 2020 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
Case Number: 3332310/2018
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant Respondent
Mr Daniel Gardner v
The Chief Constable of
Cambridgeshire Constabulary
Heard at: Cambridge
With Parties on: 26, 27 and 28 November 2019
In Chambers: 3 December 2019
(the decision having been reserved)
Before: Employment Judge Foxwell
Members: Mrs B Handley-Howarth
Mr R Eyre
Appearances
For the Claimant: In person
For the Respondent: Mr R Oulton (Counsel)
RESERVED JUDGMENT
1. The Claimant’s claims of indirect disability discrimination and victimisation
are dismissed upon withdrawal.
2. The Claimant’s claims of direct disability discrimination and discrimination
arising from disability, are not well founded and are dismissed.
RESERVED REASONS
1. The Claimant, Mr Daniel Gardner, joined the Cambridgeshire
Constabulary, the Respondent to these proceedings, as a Police Constable on 13
February 2013. He relinquished this office in October 2019 when he took early
retirement on medical grounds.
Case Number: 3332310/2018
2
2. Having gone through Early Conciliation between 20 July 2018 and
20 August 2018, the Claimant presented claims of disability discrimination to the
Tribunal on 26 August 2018. He said that he was disabled within the statutory
definition and therefore entitled to make such a claim because of three
conditions: anxiety, depression and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The
claim arose from the Respondent’s decision to make a family referral, and the
contents of that referral, during the illness which ultimately led to the Claimant’s
retirement. We explain this in more detail below.
3. The Respondent filed a response disputing the claims on their merits and
not admitting disability. Subsequently, however, it conceded that the Claimant
was disabled within the statutory definition at the times relevant to his claim
because of anxiety and depression. It did not admit, and still does not admit, that
the Claimant had current symptoms of PTSD satisfying the statutory definition at
the relevant times.
The Issues
4. The issues in the claim were identified by Employment Judge Sarah
Moore at a Preliminary Hearing in Cambridge on 8 March 2019. She set them
out as follows:
Time limits / jurisdiction issues
(i) Were the Claimant’s complaints presented within the time limits set
out in sections 123(1)(a) & (b) of the Equality Act 2020 (“EQA”)? In
this respect the Respondent notes that the date of receipt by Acas
of the Early Conciliation notification was 20 July 2018 and that the
referral to social services about which the Claimant complains
occurred on 15 March 2018. The Respondent submits that any act
or omission relied upon by the Claimant in support of his claim
which occurred prior to 20 April 2018 is out of time and it would not
be just and equitable to extend time. The Claimant submits that the
referral constituted a continuing act until the case was closed on
17 July 2018. Also, that in any event, he is complaining about the
contents of the referral rather than the fact of the referral itself and
he did not have sight of the referral until 26 June 2018.
Accordingly, this issue will involve consideration as to whether there
was an act that extended over a period of time and beyond 20 April
2018 and / or whether or not time should be extended on a just and
equitable basis.
(ii) Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the complaints? The
Respondent asserts it does not because the referral to Social
Services on 15 March 2018 was not referable to the deemed
employment relationship between the parties. In this respect the
Respondent asserts that the discrimination alleged does not fall
within part 5 of the Equality Act 2010, in particular Section 39(2)(d),
because the alleged detriment that the Claimant says he suffered
as a result of the referral was not a detriment that was work related
To continue reading
Request your trial