Mrs R Gilfillan v The Chief Constable The Police Service Of Scotland: 4103361/2018
| Judgment Date | 30 January 2020 |
| Citation | 4103361/2018 |
| Published date | 23 March 2020 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
EMPLOYMENT
TRIBUNALS
(SCOTLAND)
Case
No:
4103361/2018
Held
in
Glasgow
on
18
and
24
April,
9
and
10
September
2019
5
10
15
20
25
30
Employment
Judge
W
A
Meiklejohn
Mrs
R
Gilfillan
The
Chief
Constable,
The
Police
Service
of
Scotland
Respondent
Claimant
Represented
by:
M r D H a y -
Advocate
Represented
by:
Mr
C
McNeill
-
QC
JUDGMENT
OF
THE
EMPLOYMENT
TRIBUNAL
The
Judgment
of
the
Employment
Tribunal
is
that
the
claimant
was
disabled
within
the
meaning
of
section
6
of
the
Equality
Act
2010
as
at
20
August
2015
and
accordingly
her
claim
under
section
1
5
of
the
said
Act
(discrimination
arising
from
disability)
may
proceed
to
a
final
hearing.
REASONS
1 .
This
case
came
before
me
for
a
Preliminary
Hearing
in
Glasgow
on 1
8
and
24
April
and
9 and
10
September
2019.
Mr
Hay
appeared
for
the
claimant
and
Mr
McNeill
for
the
respondent
Issue
2.
The
sole
issue
for
determination
was
whether,
as
at
20
August
2015,
the
claimant
was
disabled
within
the
meaning
of
section
6
of
the
Equality
Act
201
0
("EqA”).
3.
Section
6
EqA
provides
as
follows
-
E.T.
Z4
(WR)
4103361/2018
Page
2
“(1)
A
person
(P)
has
a
disability
if
-
(a)
P
has
a
physical
or
mental
impairment,
and
(b)
the
impairment
has
a
substantial
and
long-term
adverse
effect
on
P’s
ability
to
carry
out
normal
day-to-day
activities.
(2)
A
reference
to a
disabled
person
is
a
reference
to a
person
who
has
a
disability.”
4.
The
claimant
was
pursuing
a
claim
that
she
had
suffered
unlawful
discrimination
under
section
15
EqA.
That
section,
so
far
as
relevant
for
present
purposes,
provides
as
follows
-
“(1)
A
person
(A)
discriminates
against
a
disabled
person
(B)
if-
(a)
A
treats
B
unfavourably
because
of
something
arising
in
consequence
of
B’s
disability.
. . ”
5.
At
a
Misconduct
Hearing
on 9
November
2017
the
sanction
of
demotion
had
been
imposed
on
the
claimant.
It
was
accepted
on
behalf
of
the
respondent
that
the
claimant
had
been
a
disabled
person
as
at
that
date.
However,
for
her
claim
under
section
15
EqA
to
succeed,
she
had
to
establish
that
her
treatment
at
that
hearing
was
“because
of
something
arising
in
consequence
of
her
disability”.
6.
The
treatment
of
the
claimant
on 9
November
2017
was
because
of
her
conduct
on
20
August
201
5.
The
question
was
whether
that
conduct
was
something
arising
in
consequence
of
her
disability,
and
that
required
the
claimant
to
show
that
she
had
been
disabled
as
at
20
August
201
5.
If I
found
that
the
claimant
was
disabled
as
at
20
August
201
5,
her
claim
could
proceed.
If I
found
she
was
not
disabled
as
at
that
date,
her
claim
would
require
to
be
dismissed.
Evidence
7.
I
heard
evidence
from
the
claimant
and,
on
her
behalf,
from
Dr
A
S
Wylie,
Consultant
Psychiatrist.
5
10
15
20
25
To continue reading
Request your trial