Police Force Transfer Policy Discriminated Against Pregnant Officer

All sorts of provisions, criteria or practices (PCPs) that an employer may believe are justified for business or operational reasons might nevertheless be discriminatory. An Employment Tribunal (ET) made that point in the case of an ambitious police officer who was shifted to a back-office role…

Jan 21, 2021

The woman was a front-line response officer, a role that she had always wanted. She was placed on restrictive duties after becoming pregnant but, following a risk assessment, her sergeant decided that she could, with some adjustments, remain part of her close and supportive team throughout her pregnancy.

However, senior management later took a different view and she was moved to a sedentary, office-based role in the relevant force’s crime management hub. As an ambitious constable, she viewed the transfer as a retrograde career step. She said that the requirement to transfer against her will, and the separation from her team, triggered stress, anxiety and migraines.

After she took action, an ET upheld her complaints of pregnancy discrimination and indirect sex discrimination, contrary to Sections 18 and 19 of the Equality Act 2010 respectively. It found that her transfer amounted to unfavourable treatment that arose directly from her pregnancy. It also found that pregnant officers, and therefore women, were more susceptible to enforced transfers under the PCP.

In dismissing the force’s challenge to that outcome, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) noted that it had apparently entirely ignored the results of the risk assessment, which expressly stated that, subject to certain adjustments, she was fit to remain in the response team.

Also rejecting an argument that the transfer was advantageous to her in that it removed her from the danger of front-line duties during her pregnancy, the EAT noted that it was close to obvious that being forced to do something against one’s wishes could be said to represent a particular disadvantage.

The PCP also placed such a disadvantage on women in general in that it could be triggered by pregnancy. It was an objective fact that a committed front-line officer would regard a transfer to a non-operational role as a backward career step. The amount of compensation due to the officer would be assessed at a further hearing, if not agreed.

Time Limits in Employment Cases – Any Delay Could Stymie Your Claim

Time limits are strictly applied in employment cases and any failure to abide by them can place even an otherwise meritorious claim in real jeopardy. That was certainly so in the case of a call centre worker who lodged a sexual harassment complaint a single day later than she should have done. Following a hearing, an Employment Tribunal (ET) found that the woman had, on three separate occasions, been sexually harassed by her line manager. He had, amongst other things, pulled her waist during a…

Employment Tribunal Blasts Operations Manager’s ‘Sham’ Redundancy

Employers all too often assert that a worker’s services are no longer needed when the real reason for their dismissal has nothing whatever to do with redundancy. As one case showed, however, employment judges were not born yesterday and are always on the lookout for such shams. The case concerned the former head of operations of an advertising sales company. He worked long hours, often at weekends and during his holidays. He had a difficult relationship with his line manager, however, largely…

Whistleblowing and the Public Interest – Guideline EAT Ruling

Workplace disclosures of information can only qualify for whistleblowing protection if they are made in the public interest – but what exactly does that mean? Guidance on that issue was given in an important Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruling. Whilst working for a law firm as a consultant, a solicitor made disclosures in the form of emails in which he expressed the view that a client was being overcharged. After his consultancy was terminated, he complained to an Employment Tribunal (ET)…