Thames Valley Police Must Pay Officer Over Disability Discrimination Claims

Ms K Hibbert was a police officer for the respondent, The Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police, from 9 May 2004 until her resignation in March 2020. In 2018, she applied for permission to run a business providing themed tents for hire. The tribunal found that the Force Security Advisor, Hollie Roberts, authorised this application. The tribunal heard that the business helped improve the claimant's mental health and helped her perform her police duties.

In April 2019, the claimant learned that a vulnerable young person she had been working with had died. She was signed off work by her GP from 9 May to 23 May 2019 due to stress at work.

The tribunal found that Ms Roberts decided to withdraw permission for the business interest with immediate effect. The claimant appealed this decision, but the tribunal heard that Detective Chief Superintendent Colin Paine refused the appeal. He stated that officers who were off sick should not have secondary business interests.

The tribunal heard that the respondent also started a formal investigation and served a notice for gross misconduct. Following this, the claimant suffered a panic attack and was signed off sick again. The tribunal found that the claimant eventually resigned in January 2020. This resignation was due to the investigation, the police's failure to investigate a serious crime against her, and the impact on her mental health.

The tribunal had already found for the claimant at an earlier hearing, and this judgment decides the compensation. The tribunal said, "The claimant's complaint of discrimination arising from disability in relation to the withdrawal of permission for a business interest succeeds." The tribunal also found that "The claimant's complaint of constructive discriminatory dismissal succeeds." Other complaints of disability discrimination failed.

The tribunal found that the withdrawal of the permission to run the business interest detrimentally affected the claimant's health and well-being. It also found that this action was likely to delay her return to police work. The tribunal found that the withdrawal was not a proportionate means of achieving the respondent's aims.

The judge said that allowing the business to continue subject to certain conditions would have been a proportionate way for the respondent to achieve its aims. The tribunal also found that the respondent's conduct regarding the withdrawal of permission and the refusal of the appeal was a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.

• Compensation for past financial losses: £26,977
• Interest on compensation for past financial losses: £4,334
• Compensation for future financial losses: £602,570
• Compensation for personal injury: £8,000
• Interest on compensation for personal injury: £1,541
• Compensation for injury to feelings: £18,000
• Interest on compensation for injury to feelings: £6,932
• Grossing up for taxation: £508,014
• Total: £1,176,368

This case shows that employers must make reasonable adjustments to support employees with disabilities. If an employer's actions are linked to a person's disability, they must ensure they are not acting unfairly.

Anyone with a problem at work can get free, impartial advice from Acas.

• Acas: The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service: a free, impartial public body that advises on problems at work and helps employers and workers settle disputes.
• Claimant: The person who brings the claim, usually the worker or former worker.
• Constructive discriminatory dismissal: When a worker is forced to resign because of discrimination.
• Disability: In the Equality Act 2010, a physical or mental impairment with a substantial and long-term effect on a person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
• Discrimination arising from disability: Treating a disabled person unfavourably because of something linked to their disability, such as sickness absence, unless the employer can justify it.
• Gross misconduct: Behaviour serious enough for an employer to dismiss someone straight away, without notice.
• Grossing up: Increasing an award so that, after any tax due on it, the worker receives the amount the tribunal intended.
• Injury to feelings: Compensation for the upset and distress caused by discrimination.
• Interest: Tribunals can add interest to discrimination awards to make up for the time the money has been owed.
• Reasonable adjustments: Changes an employer must make so that a disabled worker is not put at a substantial disadvantage, such as different hours, duties or equipment.
• Repudiatory breach: A breach of contract so serious that the other side may treat the contract as ended.
• Respondent: The employer, or other person or organisation, the claim is made against.
• Trust and confidence: A promise built into every employment contract that neither side will, without good reason, act in a way likely to destroy or seriously damage the trust between them.

Case number: 3310944/2020
Claimant: Ms K Hibbert
Respondent: The Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police
Tribunal: Employment Tribunal, Reading (Employment Judge Hawksworth)
Decision date: 24 April 2024

Read the full decision on GOV.UK

Topics: disability discrimination, constructive dismissal, police

This report explains a published tribunal decision in plain English. It is general information, not legal advice.

Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.