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.

Lay Member of EAT Recused from Hearing Matter of Heated Public Debate

Judicial officeholders are commonly high-achieving individuals with wide experience outside the confines of the law. However, as an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruling made plain, they must always be alive to the risk that their extra-judicial activities may give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The case concerned a school pastoral administrator who was sacked after expressing on social media certain views relating to the hotly debated issue of mandatory relationship education in…

Do You Suspect Employee Fraud? Lawyers Can Move Fast to Protect You

If your business deals in valuable goods, dishonesty on the part of current or former employees is sadly a threat that cannot be ignored. However, as a High Court case showed, expert lawyers can move extremely fast to investigate such concerns and minimise your losses. The case concerned a company that sourced high-value IT and other equipment for clients. It formed the view that a man who had until recently worked for it as a senior accounts manager was involved in a large-scale fraud. In the…

Employer Did Not Have Constructive Knowledge of Disability

Under Section 15(2) of the Equality Act 2010, an employer has a defence to a claim of disability discrimination if it can show that it did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the claimant had the disability in question. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) recently heard an appeal against a decision of the Employment Tribunal (ET) that an employer had met this test. A man brought a disability discrimination claim against a bank after it allegedly refused to…