P Heard v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: 2301131/2024

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 2301131/2024

Between

Paul HeardClaimant

The Commissioner of Police of the MetropolisRespondent

Before

Employment Judge N Wilson

In person for claimant

Mr S Nicholls (instructed by counsel) for respondent

Mr S Healy (instructed by Counsel) for respondent

Date 31 October 2025

JUDGMENT

[1]The claimant’s complaint of direct disability discrimination is dismissed upon withdrawal.

REASONS

Requested by the parties on 14 July 2025 Amended pursuant to the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 Rule 67 Claims and Issues

[1]The claimant brings the following complaints: a) Indirect disability discrimination pursuant to s19 of the Equality Act 2010 (“EQA”); b) Failure to make reasonable adjustments (sections 20 and 21 of the EQA)

[2]The respondent defends the claims. It contends that it made reasonable adjustments for the claimant's disabilities of which it had knowledge, and that if the claimant experienced particular or substantial disadvantage (which was denied) it was not because of his disability but because he chose to live a long distance from his workplace. The Respondent also relied upon the statutory defence of justification.

[3]Certain terms used in this judgment and during the hearing namely Police Officer, Duty and Command were discussed and approved at a case management hearing in January 2025 following an application for an anonymity order.

[4]The issues were discussed and agreed with the parties at the start of the hearing and agreed to be as follows. Mr Healy confirmed at the start of day 2 of the hearing that he did not seek to pursue a jurisdictional issue on Time Limits.

[5]The issues the Tribunal had to decide were (adopting numbering from an earlier Case Management Conference): 2. Indirect discrimination (Equality Act 2010 section 19)2.1 A “PCP” is a provision, criterion or practice. Did the respondent have the following PCP: 2.1.1 The requirement for police officers to work from a police Building

2.2 Did the respondent apply the PCP to the claimant?

2.3 Did the respondent apply the PCP to persons with whom the Case No: 2301131-2024 4 claimant does not share the protected characteristic (ie to disabled and non-disabled officers alike) or would it have done so?

2.4 Did the PCP put persons with whom the claimant shares the characteristic, at a particular disadvantage when compared with persons with whom the claimant does not share the characteristic, in that: Someone suffering from symptoms of hypothyroidism and depression will find the stress, anxiety and fatigue caused by a lengthy commute on public transport substantially more difficult which will lead to worsening health.

2.5 Did the PCP put the claimant at that disadvantage?

2.6 Was the PCP a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim? The respondent says (as set out in paragraph 15 of its Response) that its legitimate aims were:

(a) The need for police officers to effectively discharge the full range of their duties;

(b) To ensure the continuity, efficiency and resilience of the Police Service at a proportionate cost to the public;

(c) Ensuring that there are adequate officers on duty in order to discharge the Respondent’s statutory duty to investigate crimes and to protect the public;

(d) Becoming a more frontline focused Police Service by prioritising officers and staff who work directly with the public, so they have what they need to provide the best service to Londoners;

(e) To maintain an efficient and resilient Police Service to provide the best possible service to the public;

(f) To support the Respondent’s communities first approach by prioritising Londoners it serves in everything it does, listening to them and working with them to solve problems;

(g) To maintain appropriate standards, in terms of service delivery, in the Police Service;

(h) To protect the welfare of officers; and

(i) The need for and importance of collaborative working between police officers in reaching these aims.

2.7 The Tribunal will decide in particular:2.7.1 was the PCP an appropriate and reasonably necessary way to achieve those aims;

2.7.2 could something less discriminatory have been done instead;

2.7.3 how should the needs of the claimant and the respondent Case No: 2301131-2024 5 be balanced? 3. Reasonable Adjustments (Equality Act 2010 sections 20 & 21)

3.1 Did the respondent know, or could it reasonably have been expected to know that the claimant had the disability? From what date? The claimant relies on the impairments of a) Hypothyroidism and b) Depression. The respondent admits that the claimant was disabled from June 2022.

3.2 A “PCP” is a provision, criterion or practice. Did the respondent have the following PCPs: 3.2.1 The requirement for police officers to work from a police Building;

3.3 Did the PCPs put the claimant at a substantial disadvantage compared to someone without the claimant’s disability, in that: The claimant relies on a difficulty in undertaking long commutes on public transport. It is the claimant’s position that the specific long commute in question is approximately 3 hours each way and is difficult because it is fatiguing, stressful, and anxiety-inducing, and therefore impacts his physical and mental health.

3.4 Did the respondent know, or could it reasonably have been expected to know that the claimant was likely to be placed at the disadvantage?

3.5 What steps could have been taken to avoid the disadvantage? The claimant suggests: 3.5.1 Allowing the claimant to work from home for his full-time hours reviewable on a 12 monthly basis.

3.6 Was it reasonable for the respondent to have to take those steps and when?

3.7 Did the respondent fail to take those steps? 4. Remedy for discrimination Case No: 2301131-2024 6

4.1 Should the Tribunal make a recommendation that the respondent take steps to reduce any adverse effect on the claimant? What should it recommend?

4.2 Should the tribunal make an award in respect of injury to the claimant’s feelings? If so in what amount ?

The Hearing

[6]The hearing took place over 4 days. I deliberated on the third and fourth days and gave an oral judgment on the fourth day.

[7]The parties largely adhered to the agreed timetable. The start was slightly delayed for technical reasons, but the hearing progressed in accordance with a timetable agreed between the parties and the tribunal. Breaks were taken as required. At one stage on Day Two the claimant turned off his camera. He said he was able to proceed with questioning witnesses and continued to do so with no deterioration in the focus and skill with which he had performed that task earlier in the day. To ensure the perception of fairness I directed that Mr Healy’s video feed also be turned off and only his audio maintained. Witnesses were, however, visible to the tribunal and to the parties.

[8]The issues were discussed and clarified at the outset. I took some time to explain to the claimant how the issues could be used as a structure for his questioning and submissions to assist the tribunal to understand his case better.

[9]I had a hearing bundle of 722 pages and there were witness statements and oral evidence from: a) The claimant on his own behalf; b) For the respondent from:- i) Inspector (then PS) Charlotte Singh who was the claimant’s first Line Manager; ii) ACS Chris Higgins who was the claimant’s line manager from 25 July 2022 until 29 August 2023; iii) PS Sian Bowers who was the claimant’s line manager after August 2023 iv) CI Edward Miles who was the claimant’s second level line manager; v) Mr Daniel Pickett who was the Head of Strategic Reward for the Respondent. Mr Pickett gave evidence about the respondent’s Case No: 2301131-2024 7 practices in relation to home working.

[10]I had the benefit of written closing submissions from both parties supplemented by oral submissions. I have taken both parties’ submissions fully into account whether they are specifically referenced or not.

Findings of Fact

[11]I make the following findings of fact on the balance of probabilities and in light of the totality of the witness evidence I have read and heard and the documents to which I have been referred. I reference only those matters which I have considered necessary for my conclusions.

[12]In the main there was little dispute about the relevant chronology of events and the events and communications which took place. The real dispute was as to the legal consequences and reasonableness of the actions taken by the Respondent once it had knowledge of the claimant’s disabilities.

[13]The claimant started work for the respondent as a Police Officer and moved to work on the Duty in the Command in July 2017, on local operations (LOPS) specifically in what was called the SE cluster.

[14]He was stationed primarily with his operational Duty unit at an MPS building in Croydon. The Croydon site had, amongst other things the unit Senior Leadership Team (“SLT”) and access to secure terminals which enabled searches of classified material.

[15]The claimant’s duty work involved a number of elements. These were described by Inspector Singh as follows. I accept her description as accurate: The role is made up of lots of case work which may mean an officer has to go out and speak to the institution that made the referral or arrange / conduct a contact visit with the individual of concern. There is therefore a need to be in the office in order to conduct such visits with individuals who are vulnerable [....]. There is also an element of the role which is based around information / intelligence gathering using specific computer systems and researching online / via open source. An element of the role requires the use of systems which can only be accessed from an MPS building in a secure office. The locations are dotted around the MPS .... There was not a secure terminal in our office at Croydon Police Station ..., however there was one in the South East Cluster. During the time I was working in this team this system did not require routine interrogation and would only need to be utilised ad hoc (between once every two weeks and once a month). [C] also conducted lots of intelligence gathering work which is essentially intelligence gathering via internet investigations and intelligence as Case No: 2301131-2024 8 opposed to more traditional open source methods. Such work was conducted accessing a programme on a laptop which could be completed away from the office.

[16]The requirements were also set out in a formal job description [200-202]. That job description included the following: Key Tasks - You will manage cases and mitigate risk around individuals who are highlighted as being Vulnerable to being drawn into ### offending of any .sort - Assigned to work located within a BCO, you will promote COMMAND concepts and methods to local policing teams and act as the local ###embed/first point of contact for ###matters; - You will cultivate and maintain an effective working relationship with the BCU SLT and external stakeholder such as the Local Authority. - You will liaise with your BCUs and Local Authorities to facilitate local ### activity. - You will work with partner agencies to deliver the DUTY agenda and the multi-agency ####programme. - You will undertake intelligence development tasks on behalf of other units and government agencies. - You will gather and process locally generated intelligence relevant to ### including undertaking proactive work to identify individuals with ## traces involved in crime and local individuals and venues that may be developing into concerns. - You will be expected to conduct open Source Research to detect online vulnerability to ####. Full training will be provided. Key skills: - You will have excellent communication skills. This role requires regularly briefing to a range of rank levels within the MPS and partner agencies. You will also need to win trust and cooperation from a diverse range of people during your enquiries.

[17]For reasons connected with his prior service the claimant was, after mid 2023, placed on adjusted duties. These were described to me with the acronym NANO (No aid, No Operations). In broad terms the claimant was for reasons unconnected with his disability not required to attend police buildings or any other location for the purposes of providing physical Case No: 2301131-2024 9 assistance to other units or other elements of the MPS, or the purpose of carrying out contact or other activities involving members of the public which involved an element of risk to his personal safety (although in his case he was not exempted from contacts which did not involve such risk: an example might be attending a meeting with a school headteacher on school premises or attending meetings with Local Authority officers at council buildings). Officers on adjusted duties were expected to be accommodated within operational planning.

[18]In September 2018 the clamant had moved to Suffolk. This required him to commute on public transport for approximately 3 hours each way to the Croydon building. There was no dispute that the claimant was initially able to manage this commute and discharge his functions effectively. More generally I record that it is common ground that the quality of work done by the claimant, even as that has been adjusted in various ways at various points in the chronology, has always been of a high standard. On occasions he covered temporarily as acting sergeant.

[19]Some home working began to be permitted from 2019 as set out in a Smart Working Agreement Document [411]. This recorded that ‘in the majority’ work location requirements were police stations occupied by the [unit] within the BCU for which he had responsibility, but also other police buildings, local authority , school or partner agency buildings. It noted that the claimant accepted that there were no fixed days for working at alternative locations and that it was an informal arrangement which due to operational reasons might change at short notice. It also envisaged WFH as an alternative location.

[20]Bespoke working arrangements were of necessity implemented during COVID between March 2020 and about May 2021. During that time working from home became more common. There was an official operational attendance requirement of two officers in person per team at the unit building, while others worked from home. In practice, the claimant’s team and local line managers in the SE cluster required a less rigid attendance policy and required physical attendance only when physical attendance was operationally required: eg; for tasking or secure research. This cluster-wide practice continued past June 2021 with physical tasking requirements being undertaken ‘by those physically able to do that’ [437]. The practice of blended working across the respondent’s activities as a whole was formally encapsulated in a Blended Working Framework and a Blended Working Hub from about June 2021, which was an extension and development of the practices which had been adopted in response to the pandemic [566, 573, 601]. Under the Blended Working Framework the Command was identified as a “Role Working Mainly at the Same Location”. The characteristics of these roles was stated to be that: “These people need to spend time with their colleagues, collaborating in teams to solve crimes or resolve difficult incidents. They will typically spend time out in the community but also need Case No: 2301131-2024 10 to spend focussed time within a Met Building. They will have some ability to choose the specific Met Building where they work and will be able to plan activities that can be completed remotely.” Under the heading Flexibility and Needs, it stated “They will typically work from a Met Building and need access to a set of desks within a team area…..They will have a laptop computer. Some activites could be performed remotely but may require some forward planning. Flexibility will vary greatly but they will be expected to work in a blended way (from other MPS buildings or from home) on average 1 day per week.”

[21]In about June 2021 there were a total of about 71 Police Officers working on the Duty in all clusters at that time. Three out of 6 officers on the claimant’s team were working from home and marked ‘WFH – not deployable’ in the roster sheet. The evidence did not clearly establish what the circumstances of those officers were and why they were marked as ‘WFH not deployable’, and in particular whether it related to disabilities or COVID-related vulnerabilities of their own, or whether this arrangement was simply a legacy of COVID management procedures. But it was common ground, and I find, that they worked from home and were not required to attend buildings physically.

[22]The claimant said that one officer on adjusted duties worked full time from home during that period doing the same job as the claimant. The evidence about this arrangement and the circumstances in which it was implemented was insufficient for me make to make any clear finding of fact about the reasons why this arrangement existed, nor was I able to draw any meaningful inferences from it about wider practices.

[23]Inspector (then PS) Singh took over command of the team in May 2021 and was the claimant’s 1st line manager until 25 July 2022. By August 2021 the claimant was one of only three deployable officers out of a total of seven in the unit.

[24]I accept Inspector Singh’s evidence about the situation at that time. There had been a move to reintegrate police officers back into the workplace after May 2021. In her unit/cluster before about May 2022 there was no set attendance requirement imposed, but officers were (and the claimant did) attend as required to fulfil the requirements their role. During this time contact visits were randomly required on an ad hoc basis approximately once a month. Inspector Singh relied upon the claimant at that time as one of a limited number of officers who were not on adjusted duties and so were able to conduct contact visits when required.

[25]The claimant began to experience undiagnosed health conditions – breathlessness in particular – in mid 2021. The respondent was not aware of this.

[26]In October 2021 the claimant made a request to work compressed hours. Case No: 2301131-2024 11 That is to say his standard 40 hour 5 day week was compressed into 4 days of 10 hours duration. As a result, he was able to perform a more intense 4-day week and have a day free each week. His application for compressed hours working referenced that he had to commute for long periods of time but the application was not made on the basis that he was experiencing any disability or illness basis. It was based on his ‘life-style’ or wellbeing preferences [66]. The compressed working request was approved on 1 November 2021.

[27]The claimant took a week’s sick leave during May 2022 and during this time consulted his GP who sent him for tests.

[28]On 22 June 2021 he informed PS Singh that he had been diagnosed with hypothyroidism and had been managing symptoms of high blood pressure, tiredness depression and memory problems for some months. I find the respondent through Inspector Singh knew of the claimant’s disability from this date. He remained on sick leave thereafter until 27 November 2022.

[29]On 8 July 2022 the first Occupational Health report was provided [91] . That report confirmed that C had also been diagnosed with depression and was on medication for that as well as hypothyroidism. The report advised that he was not at that stage fit for work at all (to be reviewed by the GP) but noted that if he were to return to work he should return to office-based duties on reduced 5 hour shifts. A further Occupational Health report was planned for 4 weeks later. He was subsequently signed off by his GP as unfit until 8 August 2022 by reason of depression.

[30]On 20 July 2022 the claimant attended a 40-day absence welfare meeting with PS Singh. He described himself to her as tired and spending a lot of time sleeping, and that he was on medication for his two disabilities. Inspector Singh recommended that when the claimant was fit to return to work that he should do so on restricted duties for a period and with adjustments to the length of his working day. She considered it would be beneficial for him to have interactions with colleagues but to have a limited workload. There was no mention of stress and so no Reasonable Adjustment for stress was considered or recommended.

[31]On 25 July 2022 then A/DS Chris Higgins replaced Sergeant Singh as the claimant’s line manager.

[32]On 5 August 2022 the second Occupational Health assessment took place [109]. The claimant’s symptoms remained largely the same and were unimproved. He reported extreme tiredness and fatigue, poor concentration and negative thoughts and anxiety. The report declared him unfit for any work.

[33]On 30 August 2022 a third Occupational Health Assessment [111] took place. The position remained largely unchanged save that the claimant had Case No: 2301131-2024 12 begun counselling.

[34]On 21 September 2022 the claimant wrote to A/DS Chris Higgins formally restating his disabilities of hypothyroidism and depression and requesting that his sickness absences be treated as related to disability. This was effected on 23 October 2022 and his disability recorded on the MPS system.

[35]A fourth Occupational Health report found that that the claimant continued to be unfit for any work, his impairments had remained largely unchanged as efforts were made to medicate his disabilities effectively.

[36]On 7 November 2022 [142] a Psychological Therapist Report on claimant’s counselling sessions indicated improved positivity and reduced depression and anxiety effects. It referenced his plan for a phased return to work in November 2022 and recorded that he had discussed stress management and setting boundaries as barriers to address for his return to work.

[37]On 10 November 2022 the claimant met with (now) ACS Higgins for a case conference to discuss his plan for a phased return to work starting in November. At that meeting the claimant described continuing symptoms of fatigue and low mood but that he considered a return to work would benefit him. The detail of the planned phased return to work was informed by a further Occupational Health Report dated 23 November 2022.

[38]That report [152] recommended a 12-week phased return to work. Starting from 1 to 4 hours per day increasing hourly after 3 weeks up to full working hours with breaks. The report recommended ‘if management agrees’ an ‘agile working’ approach until the claimant felt well enough to undertake a blended pattern starting with 1 day per week in the office, with an extra day added each week. The reference to an agile approach meant working exclusively from home.

[39]The claimant began his phased return to work plan on 28 November 2022. He worked exclusively from home and continued to do so until ACS Higgins ceased to line manage him on 1 September 2023. During this time he was allocated a limited range of duties, consisting largely of supporting other colleagues’ work, to assist with his recuperation.

[40]He was assessed by Occupational Health again in January 2023. That report noted that he remained fit to work from home and that there should be consideration of a blended approach ‘when he is able to’.

[41]A further Occupational Health assessment – the seventh - was made on 9 March 2023 [157]. This records that that claimant was by now working his full hours but, with management agreement, on a flexible working pattern with later start times. He continued to work exclusively from home.

[42]On about 14 March 2023 the claimant prepared a disability passport Case No: 2301131-2024 13 recording his disabilities and discussed this with ACS Higgins. ACS Higgins suggested that the claimant needed to demonstrate that he could do 70-80% of the work or there might be a risk of medical retirement expressed ADS Higgins suggested that the Claimant should discuss the passport’s contents with the Police Federation. Shortly after that the claimant asked for his compressed hours arrangement to be continued for a further 12 months.

[43]In his disability passport he described his disabilities and the effects on good and bad days. He indicated the adjustments that would assist him as follows: a) Agile working the form of working from home subject to periodic supervisory review as per HR Guidance to provide him with an appropriate environment which will allow me to manage my disabilities; b) Minor adjustments to work duties (eg Taskings); c) Flexible working: eg. short breaks and time off for medical appointments.

[44]He submitted a formal request for Reasonable Adjustments on these lines on the 6 April 2023 [173] . He later clarified that in relation to WFH he was asking for WFH subject to supervisory review, not to do so permanently. The formal request included a statement that: “I am not able to return to a situation where I have to undertake such a commute to work without the stress and exhaustion significantly impacting my ability and worsening my MH (Mental Health), hyperthyroidism ..[249]”

[45]The request went through internal consideration with the Senior Leadership Team. It was sent to Inspector Clarke and was further discussed with CI Miles during April 2023.

[46]The claimant completed a further psychological assessment on 12 May 2023. In that assessment he reported that his 3-hour travel to work was a working condition stressor, but that that was not a factor now he was working from home. He noted that his caseload had been reduced

[47]On 18 May 2023 he had another Occupational Health assessment. He reported that his physical and mental wellbeing could be compromised by extreme fatigue, travelling into work and work load and he needed to pace his day. In the report he was assessed as fit for full hours on adjusted duties (NANO), and that until symptoms are alleviated he should, with management approval, continue with agile working and have a stress assessment. It is common ground no stress assessment was carried out. No further Occupational Health reviews were recommended.

[48]The claimant corresponded with a colleague on 9 June 2023 who lived at a long distance from the office and he disclosed that he was not being Case No: 2301131-2024 14 required to attend daily but did attend ‘once a week or so for contact visits etc’

[49]On 20 June 2023 CI Miles, having reviewed the claimant’s formal request for reasonable adjustments emailed SLT colleagues that: ‘In my opinion we are unable to accommodate the request’ . The reasons he gave in relation to the WFH request was that: “we currently have no roles available that would allow working from home to the extent required and no public contact. The PO [Police Officer] role is an operational public facing role. The adjustments would result in additional work being placed upon other officers on the teams and would impact how we could effectively deliver our operational priorities”. His superior confirmed agreement with that conclusion shortly thereafter.

[50]In the course of further internal discussions a DSI Corrigan confirmed that there were at that stage no permanent WFH positions, and that although the line manager suggested that in this case it might not be permanent she could see nothing in the planning that was going to change the claimant’s position. A CI Snow observed that the respondent: ‘could not agree to permanent WFH without an end date [236]’ She set out the options as being:(i) finding a vacancy that allowed home working

(ii) seeking medical retirement or

(iii) managing out of the organisation through unsatisfactory performance.

[51]On 11 August 2023 ACS Higgins and Inspector Clark explained to the claimant that full time WFH could not be agreed because the claimant could be doing it for years and ‘the new commissioner wants everyone in the office’. He was told that WFH would be allowed temporarily with the expectation of a return to a police building full time and his options were explained.

[52]This discussion was confirmed in writing on 15 August 2023 [256]. That letter stated that the reasons for the refusal of permanent WFH were:(i) that it would limit the claimant’s ability to conduct certain checks, complete taskings attend in person meetings, manage classified level information and complete contact visits and

(ii) more generally WFH removes the claimant from learning and development opportunities when teams work together, and makes supervision and welfare monitoring more difficult. It went on: “because reasonable adjustments should not provide an advantage or impact on others he would not be able to agree to them”. The letter offered a degree of blended working (i.e altered working times/patterns) until the thyroid condition was suitably managed.

[53]The claimant challenged aspects of this refusal with the assistance of his police federation representative, Mr Hogben. In particular he relied upon: a) Only one person was needed access to secure terminals on any day; Case No: 2301131-2024 15 b) Based on an analysis of duty workload data, out of a total of 24 taskings and 10 actions over the previous year, 10 taskings and 1 action could have been done remotely; c) Duties incompatible with WFH were either infrequent, could be done remotely or he would not be doing them anyway because of his NANO adjustment.

[54]On 1 September 2023 PS Bowers took over responsibility as claimant’s line manager.

[55]On 5 September she submitted to the claimant a plan for phased return to full duties and this was discussed with him at a Teams meeting on 9 October 2023. A revised plan envisaging a 10-week return to full blended working aligned with the team was proposed for consideration and review in light of the SLT’s refusal of ‘permanent’ (i.e without a prospective end date) WFH . Attendance at a nearer local ops building in Stratford was offered – with the prospect of a shorter 2-hour commute. The blended working pattern was later clarified as being subject to line management discretion but that meant that there was a minimum expectation of two days per week in a police building and three days WFH. This was one day fewer than colleagues who were not experiencing disabilities were expected to attend.

[56]The claimant says that the senior leadership team’s refusal of his WFH request and this plan exacerbated his stress and resulted in a worsening of symptoms.

[57]On 17 October 2023 at a further Occupational Health assessment, the claimant reported that the commute was ‘exhausting’ and the report recorded that: ‘given his health issues [the claimant] does not feel he will be able to commute’, that he did not feel able to work other than at home and was unable to give any indication when that situation might change. In light of that the report recommended that the claimant was fit for work but because of the claimant’s perceived inability to work other than at home, WFH would continue for the foreseeable future.

[58]On 9 November 2023 the claimant submitted a grievance against the refusal of his request for the reasonable adjustment of WFH full-time pending annual review. He said that his request was for an adjustment of working exclusively from home ‘for the foreseeable future’ not permanently.

[59]He agreed to PS Bowers’ Return to Work proposal, but did so, he said, under protest in fear of disciplinary sanction.

[60]The claimant submitted his ET1 on 6 January 2024.

[61]He commenced his Return-to-Work plan in January 2024 with permission to work from the MPS’ Stratford building. He said he was often unable to Case No: 2301131-2024 16 attend because of illness or being symptomatic and instead worked from home. PS Bowers said he was offered flexibility as to when and how to attend and schedule his office attendances, contacts and attendances. This programme worked until week four but the claimant became too unwell to attend offices thereafter, although he continued working from home.

[62]The claimant was required to attend in-person mandatory training in April 2024. A hotel overnight was provided for him to facilitate his attendance.

[63]Following informal mediation of his grievance in May 2024 he recommenced a return to work. He attended a variety of MPS buildings in London on 30 May, 5 and 27 June and 4 July 2024 and completed the first four weeks of his RTW plan. He then reported sick and was absent from work from 18 July to 5 August 2024. Thereafter he re-started his grievance.

[64]Since 5 August 2024 the claimant has not experienced any periods of ill-health absence.

[65]In December 2024 CI Miles proposed a varied RTW plan involving 1 day per week in a LOPS office of the claimant’s choice to minimise commuting time, increasing to two days per week in month two, and for month three remaining at two days per week but with attendance at the claimant’s chosen unit office (all of this on the basis of the claimant’s agreed compressed working basis of 4x ten hour days).

[66]On 18 December 2024 CI Miles wrote to the claimant notifying him that he was expected to begin his return to work on 6 January 2025 and that that involved following the varied Return to Work plan. If he did not do so, then he would be treated as off sick. The letter reiterated the possibility of consideration of a move to a team closer to the claimant’s home, and to the possibility of a request for voluntary transfer to another unit (although he wrote that that possibility in so far as it involved full-time WFH was thought to be low).

[67]A revised Hybrid Working Policy applicable across the MPS, having been consulted upon in autumn 2024, came into force in January 2025 [660].

[68]The Hybrid Working Policy: a) Stated the importance for the MPS to be more connected with communities and colleagues and that “Most of our operational roles cannot be delivered anywhere other than in police buildings and our communities. This means they cannot routinely be completed by working at home or in a hybrid way” and “All staff and officers benefit from collegiate working and there is a risk of isolation of individuals if they are working remotely too frequently”; b) Operational roles were distinguished from support roles. Operational Case No: 2301131-2024 17 roles were required to be carried out from an MPS location for most of the time, specifically a return to 5 day working from a met location (where there is no impact on operational delivery, individuals will be permitted to complete the equivalent of 1 day per week (no more than 20%) Hybrid Working, and those officers working on a hybrid basis including WFH must remain flexible and be able to attend a MPS location if they are required for operational reasons. By contrast support roles typically were permitted to WFH for 2 days per week. c) In relation to adjusted duty (i.e: NANO) situations the policy provided : “Officers Placed on adjusted duties or staff requiring a change to working arrangements should normally continue to attend a Met location in line with their designated hybrid working category. The Met does not generally support any permanent WFH as part of hybrid working arrangements for officers or staff. Any applications from officers or staff on adjusted or similar duties to work from home on a permanent basis are likely to be rejected unless there are extenuating circumstances where there is a requirement to make reasonable adjustments, the Met will consider all options available including moving someone to a role that allows additional flexibility: i.e: from an operational to a support role.

[69]The claimant commenced his return to work in accordance with the RTW programme as varied in January 2025. The evidence before me was that that programme had been adhered to without the claimant incurring any sickness absence.

[70]The claimant requested a review of his case by an HR panel to determine whether his circumstances fell within the (undefined) category of ‘extenuating’ circumstances envisaged within the 2025 Hybrid Working Policy which, if established, might permit permanent full time WFH. That request was considered at a hearing on 19 February 2025 and rejected. The principal reasons were i) there was no medical evidence to support permanent WFH, the primary factor was his distance from an office ii) the sensitive nature of the role made full time WFH an inappropriate adjustment iii) the claimant was not fulfilling the ordinary duties of a constable as set out in the College of Policing’s competency and values framework.

[71]The most recent occupational health report of 18 March 2025 based on a telephone interview recorded that the claimant reported little change in his condition despite stable bloodwork and medication. He still felt unable to commute, even to Stratford, because of the effects on his performance /ability to focus. The report concluded that the claimant was fit for adjusted duties in a desk-based role, but medically unfit to attend the workplace and that that is likely to be the position for the foreseeable future. The Practitioner was “unable to identify any reasonable adjustment that would Case No: 2301131-2024 18 enable him to achieve the required office attendance under the hybrid working policy”. It noted that it was a management responsibility to determine whether any recommendations or adjustments are operationally achievable in line with policies and procedures. Indirect Disability Discrimination : EQA s 19

Applicable Law

[72]Section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 provides: “(1) A person(a) (A) discriminates against another

(b) (B) if A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice which is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B’s. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a provision, criterion or practice is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B’s if – (a) A applies, or would apply, it to persons with whom B does not share the characteristic, (b) it puts, or would put, persons with whom B shares the characteristic at a particular disadvantage when compared with persons with whom B does not share it;

(d) A cannot show it to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.”

[73]The burden is on the claimant of proving the PCP and that there is an affirmative answer to the elements in subsection 2 a) b) and c). Only if the claimant discharges this burden does it fall to the respondent to justify the PCP: West Yorkshire Police & anor v. Homer

[2012] ICR 704

SC. The respondent may show that the PCP is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The burden of establishing that justification is on the respondent.

[74]The question whether the PCP relied upon is, in fact, a PCP is one of fact for the Tribunal: Allonby v Accrington and Rossendale College

[2001] EWCA Civ 529

[2001] IRLR 364

, CA. A ‘PCP’ is no more than a way of doing things: it may or may not be a written process or policy: British Airways plc v Starmer

[2005] IRLR 862

). The individual elements of provision, criterion and practice are to be given a liberal and purposive interpretation and the question for the Tribunal is whether apparent discrimination results from something which might properly be described by any or all of those labels and if so whether it can be justified: Harrod v CC of West Midlands Police

[2017] EWCA 191

[2017] IRLR 539

per Bean LJ and United First Partners Research v Carreras

[2018] EWCA Civ 323

. But if the act or Case No: 2301131-2024 19 decision was not done/made by reason of disability or other relevant ground, it is artificial and wrong to seek by a process of abstraction to convert such conduct into the application of a discriminatory PCP : see Simler LJ in Ishola v Transport for London

[2020] EWCA Civ 112

[2020] IRLR 368

[2020] ICR 1204

[75]The PCP being complained of must be one which the alleged discriminator applies or would apply equally to persons who do not have the protected characteristic in question. This form of discrimination requires a comparative exercise which requires first identifying the total pool of employees affected by the PCP including those who are disadvantaged and those who are advantaged by the PCP. It is not necessary that the PCP was actually applied to others, so long as consideration is given to what its effect would have been if it had been applied. Solitary disadvantage does not give rise to indirect discrimination but it may be appropriate to aggregate a solitary employee with others known to have the same characteristic and known to be potentially affected in the same way: Eweida v British Airways plc

2010 ICR 890

, CA per Lord Sedley. There is also no requirement for a claimant to prove why a PCP puts a group at a disadvantage: Essop v Home Office

[2017] UKSC 27

)

[76]It is generally necessary for a claimant to adduce evidence tending to show that a group of persons who share their protected characteristic (though not necessarily all of them) are placed at a particular disadvantage by the PCP and that the claimant personally is also at that disadvantage. The correct approach is first to identify the relevant particular disadvantage or difficulty created for those in the group (the group disadvantage): EQA s6(3) makes clear that it is the particular disability that is relevant. The next step is then to consider whether the claimant suffered that same particular disadvantage. Proving that the particular disadvantage affects the cohort of people who share the claimant’s characteristic may involve consideration of pools of employees, statistical evidence, expert or other evidence. In ascertaining the group which is the relevant group experiencing the group disadvantage the relevant cohort is the group of employees who share the same disability as the claimant. Those outside of the group may be employees with no, or with different disabilities.

[77]What constitutes a ‘disadvantage’ is not defined in the Equality Act and depends on the facts of the case. The EHRC Employment Code states that ‘disadvantage’ is to be construed as ‘something that a reasonable person would complain about — so an unjustified sense of grievance would not qualify but it is enough that the worker can reasonably say that they would have preferred to be treated differently’: EHRC Employment Code paragraph 4.9. A disadvantage does not have to be quantifiable, and the worker does not have to experience actual loss (economic or otherwise).

[78]If the tribunal finds that there has been discriminatory conduct the Case No: 2301131-2024 20 respondent may prove that there is an objective justification for that conduct. The burden is on the employer to provide both an explanation and justification. Generalisations are not sufficient. Operational needs may amount to a legitimate aim. The EAT summarised the principles tribunals must apply in assessing this issue in City of Oxford Bus Services Ltd t/a Oxford Bus Company v Harvey EAT 0171/18. In broad outline, the employer must: a) Identify the aim or aims that the PCP was a means of achieving; b) Show that the aim was legitimate; and c) Show that the PCP was proportionate. d) The tribunal’s assessment of proportionality involves balancing the importance of the aim against the discriminatory impact of the PCP on the disadvantaged group. The clearer the disadvantage, the more compelling the justification will need to be. e) The tribunal will also consider whether or not the same aim could have been achieved by less discriminatory means. The balancing exercise will involve careful consideration of the evidence, including the particular business needs of the respondent: Hardys & Hanson plc v. Lax

[2005] EWCA Civ 846

. Failure to make reasonable adjustments: EQA s 20 / 21

Applicable Law

[79]The duty to make adjustments under S.20 EQA applies where a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) has been applied by the employer that puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled. Where a PCP puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled the employer is required to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage.

[80]A failure to comply with the requirement is a failure to make reasonable adjustments and an employer will be regarded as having discriminated against the disabled person: EQA s.21.

[81]A ‘substantial disadvantage’ is something that is ‘more than minor or trivial’: EQA section 212(1). The tribunal must identify the nature and extent of the disadvantage to which the claimant is subjected with some degree of precision. The substantial disadvantage must be established by comparison with ‘persons who are not disabled’, so the duty to make reasonable adjustments is only triggered if it is established that the relevant PCP causes Case No: 2301131-2024 21 greater disadvantage to the disabled claimant than it does to non-disabled people to whom the requirement is applied, not by reference to non-disabled persons generally. The purpose of the comparison exercise with people who are not disabled is to test whether the PCP has the effect of producing the relevant disadvantage as between those who are and those who are not disabled, and whether what causes the disadvantage is the PCP: Sheikholeslami v University of Edinburgh

2018 IRLR 1090

, EAT. Section EQA 20(3) therefore does not contain a strict causation test but a causative link has to be shown between the PCP and the disadvantage suffered by the employee to inform the determination of what adjustments an employer was obliged to make.

[82]The tribunal must state how the adjustment that it considers reasonable would actually have alleviated the claimant’s substantial disadvantage: Environment Agency v Rowan

2008 ICR 218

, EAT.

[83]The claimant bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case that the duty to make reasonable adjustments has arisen and that there are facts from which it could reasonably be inferred — absent an explanation — that the duty has been breached.

[84]Once satisfied that the section 20 duty has potentially been triggered, the tribunal will consider what adjustments could and should have been made. It will need to identify the ‘step’ or ‘steps’, if any, the employer could reasonably have taken to prevent the claimant suffering the disadvantage in question. Again, the onus falls on the claimant, not the employer, to identify in broad terms the nature of the adjustment that would ameliorate the substantial disadvantage. Having done so, the burden then shifts to the employer to show that the disadvantage would not have been eliminated or reduced by the proposed adjustment and/or that the adjustment was not a reasonable one to make.

[85]The section 20 duty only arises in respect of those steps that it is reasonable for the employer to take to avoid the disadvantage experienced by the disabled person. Reasonableness may require an employer to take positive steps that entail treating a disabled employee more favourably than others in order to alleviate the consequences of the disability: O’Hanlon v Revenue and Customs Commissioners

2007 ICR 1359

, CA. Reasonableness is to assessed from the point of view both of the claimant and the respondent.

[86]The test of reasonableness in this context is an objective one: Smith v Churchills Stairlifts plc

2006 ICR 524

, CA, and so may require a tribunal to substitute its own view for that of the employer. In assessing reasonableness in the context of S.20, it is necessary for the tribunal to look at the proposed adjustment from the point of view of both the claimant and employer and then make an objective determination. The focus must be on whether the adjustment itself can be considered reasonable rather than on Case No: 2301131-2024 22 the reasonableness of the process by which the employer reached the decision about the proposed adjustment. The courts have held that one factor above all others is crucial: the effectiveness of the proposed step or steps. The EHRC Employment Code (see para 6.28) suggests examples of reasonable adjustments in practice and of matters that a tribunal might take into account in determining reasonableness of the adjustments: a) the effectiveness of the step; b) the extent to which it was practicable for the employer to take the step; c) the financial and other costs that would be incurred by the employer in taking the step and the extent to which taking it would disrupt any of its activities; d) the extent of the employer’s financial and other resources or the availability to the employer of financial or other assistance in respect of taking the step; e) the nature of the employer’s activities and the size of its undertaking; f) ‘What is a reasonable step for an employer to take will depend on all the circumstances of each individual case’.

[87]Mr Healy referred me to Burke v. The College of Law

[2012] EWCA Civ 37

, CA for the proposition that in considering the reasonableness of a proposed adjustment, the tribunal should take a step back and look at the issue holistically, i.e. look at what other adjustments have already been taken rather than looking at a proposed adjustment in isolation.

[88]An employer has a defence if it does not know and could not reasonably be expected to know that the disabled person is disabled and is likely to be placed at a substantial disadvantage by the PCP: see EQA s 20(1)(b) and Schedule 8. The question is what objectively the employer could reasonably have known following reasonable enquiry. Even where an employer knows that an employee has a disability, it will not be liable for a failure to make adjustments if it ‘does not know, and could not reasonably be expected to know’ that a PCP would be likely to place that employee at a substantial disadvantage: eg. If it did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the particular disadvantage upon which the claimant relies, even if it knew that the claimant was disabled in some way: Glasson v Insolvency Service

2024 EAT 5

[89]An employer has a defence to a claim for breach of the statutory duty and is relieved of any legal obligation to make reasonable adjustments if it does not know and could not reasonably be expected to know that the disabled person is disabled and is likely to be placed at a substantial disadvantage by the PCP. The question is what objectively the employer could reasonably Case No: 2301131-2024 23 have known following reasonable enquiry. Even where an employer knows that an employee has a disability, it will not be liable for a failure to make adjustments if it ‘does not know, and could not reasonably be expected to know’ that a PCP would be likely to place that employee at a substantial disadvantage — see para 20(1)(b), Sch 8 EqA and Wilcox v Birmingham CAB Services Ltd EAT 0293/10 (considering an earlier statutory provision) and Glasson v Insolvency Service

2024 EAT 5

, in which the EAT upheld an employment tribunal’s decision that while the employer was aware of the claimant’s disability, it did not have knowledge, actual or constructive, of the particular disadvantage upon which the claimant relied. Failure to make reasonable adjustments Analysis and conclusions

[90]I consider first the reasonable adjustments claim as this was the main focus of the hearing and submissions. Did the respondent know, or could it reasonably have been expected to know that the claimant had the disability? From what date? The claimant relies on the impairments of a) Hypothyroidism and b) depression

[91]The respondent admits that the claimant was disabled by reason of the above conditions from June 2022.

[92]I find that the respondent knew of the claimant’s disability from 22 June 2022 when he advised then PS Singh by email of his diagnosis and began a period of sick leave. PS Singh was his line manager and her knowledge was that of the respondent for present purposes.

[93]He had also provided information to ACS Higgins and to HR in September and October 2022 about symptoms connected with Hypothyroidism. The various Occupational Health Reports also referenced the nature of the impairments the claimant was experiencing.

[94]It is in any event clear that the respondent knew of the disability by the time the claimant submitted his disability passport. It is clear on any basis therefore that the respondent knew of his disabilities and had actual, alternatively constructive knowledge of the particular disadvantages he would experience from the PCP relied upon arising from those conditions before the decision was made to refuse his request for this reasonable adjustment.

[95]This defence was not strongly pursued before me, but I find is not available to the respondent on the facts. Was there a PCP of a requirement for police officers to work from a police Case No: 2301131-2024 24 building

[96]There is no dispute that the respondent at all material times had a PCP of requiring police officers to work from a police building.

[97]The PCP applied both to disabled and non-disabled police officers.

[98]Before January 2025 the PCP was encapsulated initially in the Smarter Working Agreement Document, and from mid-2021 in the Blended Working Framework and the Blended Working Hub [566, 573, 601]. As set out above, under the Blended Working Framework the work of the Command was designated as a ‘Role Mostly working at the Same Location’ which envisaged blended working (i.e permitting work from home or from a different MPS building on one day per week). Before 2022 that PCP was somewhat flexibly applied in the SE cluster, or at least in Team 2, which tolerated more working from home but in principle expected physical attendance at a building or for contact visits as operational demands required. As against this there were three out of six officers in the claimant’s Team marked ‘WFH – non deployable’ in the roster, but I am unable to infer or conclude from his evidence alone that the general statement of blended working practice was not adhered to.

[99]From January 2025 the PCP was contained in the express provisions of the Hybrid Working Policy [660-665]. That envisaged that Police Officers carrying out Operational Roles (as distinct from Support Roles) be permitted to work a maximum of 20% of their hours (i.e: a maximum of one day per 5 day week) from an alternative location including working from home providing there was no impact on operational delivery, and that requests for reasonable adjustments to work permanently from home would likely be rejected except where there were extenuating circumstances, and that a change of role, to a support role would be considered where extra flexibility would be required.

[100]It was common ground that the claimant was a police officer and that his was an Operational Role for the purposes of the application of the PCP.

[101]I find that the PCP was applied to the claimant in the forms I have expressed above from time to time. Did the application of the PCP place the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage when compared with non-disabled persons? The claimant relies on a difficulty in undertaking long commutes on public transport. It is the claimant’s position that the specific long commute in question is approximately 3 hours each way and is difficult because it is fatiguing, stressful, and anxiety-inducing, and therefore impacts his physical and mental health.

[102]The claimant did not suggest that travel on public transport per se would result in any significant exacerbation of his condition. The disadvantage for Case No: 2301131-2024 25 him arose, on his case, because the inherently tiring nature of a long commute exacerbated the symptoms arising from both his physical and mental health disabilities.

[103]The commutes facing the claimant were (where he was required to travel to Croydon) 3 hours or more each way. In the case of travel to Stratford, they were 2 hours approximately each way.

[104]These are long-duration journeys. They were undertaken on public transport. Such a duration of travel would objectively be likely to induce stress and fatigue on a non-disabled person.

[105]The symptoms of hypothyroidism include excessive fatigue and breathlessness. I find the claimant in fact experienced both of these symptoms. He also experienced the mental health disability of depression. His mental health was adversely impacted when his physical health became more impaired (although there was no evidence, and I do not find, that the claimant’s depression or mental health were adversely impacted by the fact alone of having to use public transport or travel to a work place).

[106]I accept that the physical and consequent mental health symptoms of the claimant’s disabilities could be, and were in fact, exacerbated by travel on public transport where such travel was of a substantial duration. Accordingly, I find that the claimant found commuting to a Met location more stressful than a non-disabled person as a result of his disability. This conclusion is supported by the numerous Occupational Health reports that reference the claimant’s commute as a factor contributing to his stress and the associated recommendations to permit a period of WFH subject to management approval.

[107]However, on the basis of the evidence before me, and whilst I find that a single episode of extended travel might on a particular day cause the claimant a disadvantage compared to a non-disabled person, I consider that there would need to be repetition of that sort of travel over an intense period (say multiple times within a week) with little or no time for recovery before what would undoubtedly be a disadvantage (fatigue from a single long commute) would become a substantial disadvantage.

[108]That conclusion is supported by the fact that the claimant has managed since January April 2025 to undertake office-based attendance for up to two days one day per week (in conjunction with other adjustments) without relapse. It is consistent also with the first and second attempts to return to work which resulted in a breakdown only after repeated attempts to increase attendance over time. I note that although the most recent Occupational Health report of March 2025 concludes that the claimant is not fit to undertake office work, it does so by reference to the new Hybrid Working Policy which envisages, for Operational Police officers, a minimum of four days per week in the office (when taken with blended working and Case No: 2301131-2024 26 compressed hours).

[109]The respondent submitted that section 20(3) of the Equality Act 2010 requires that it is the PCP that puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage. If the substantial disadvantage is caused not by the PCP imposed by the employer but by other factors (e.g. the individual or personal choices of the employee, which in turn cause difficulties for the employee) then there can be no unlawful discrimination by reason of a failure to make reasonable adjustments. Putting the point another way, the respondent was contending that it was the claimant’s decision to live at some distance from his unit (or the nearest MPS building which contains relevant systems) which was the effective cause of the substantial disadvantage arising from his disability not the requirement to attend an MPS building.

[110]However, whilst the respondent’s argument is superficially attractive, I must, and the respondent must, assess the effect of the PCP by reference to the situation as it was. The purpose of the statute is, amongst other things, to remove barriers to participation in work. If, for example, an employee was initially not required to attend any location physically, and such a requirement were to be introduced as a PCP, if the physical location was in the next village, the PCP might cause a disadvantage to all employees, but not a substantial one to any, or any sub-group of them. If the nearest location was a long way away the PCP would still cause a disadvantage to all employees but for those with a disability whose nature makes long-distance (though not short distance) public travel difficult then it becomes clearer that it is the PCP which is the cause of a substantial disadvantage in both cases, but that it is the disability which causes the particular disadvantage to those experiencing that disability compared to those who are not disabled in that way.

[111]Putting the point another way, I consider that the respondent’s submission mischaracterises the issue. Mr Healy submitted that what the claimant is really complaining about is not the requirement to work in police buildings but the requirement for him to commute long distances to police buildings, and that that (the requirement to commute long distances) is not the PCP because it is not imposed or applied by the respondent on its staff including the claimant. This mischaracterises the issue because in my judgment it is inherent in a PCP that requires all staff to physically attend a building (where they do not live) for part of the week that they are expected physically to travel to it. For those with disabilities that make certain travel more difficult, the PCP may (or may not) cause a substantial disadvantage.

[112]I find that the PCP which required attendance at a police building whilst capable of causing a substantial disadvantage for those with the claimant’s disability compared with others who had no, or a different disability, did not in fact do so in the case of the claimant except where that PCP was applied in a way that required the claimant to attend (and commute to) a location in Case No: 2301131-2024 27 an intense or repetitive pattern so as to result in the claimant experiencing substantial fatigue and induced anxiety.

[113]Again, this conclusion is supported by the fact that the claimant was able to complete successfully four weeks of his 2025 phased RTW plan (at one 10 hour day per week in the workplace) when he reduced his travelling time by working at Stratford compared to when he was required to travel to Croydon. It may be inferred from this that a shorter commute results in a reduced disadvantage experienced by the claimant. The claimant accepted this was the case in cross-examination.

[114]Even if the analysis above is wrong or the PCP by its nature or application did cause a substantial disadvantage, my finding as regards the nature and degree of disadvantage is relevant to the exercise of determining what is required as a reasonable adjustment. Did the respondent know, or could it reasonably have been expected to know that the claimant was likely to be placed at the disadvantage?

[115]I am satisfied that the respondent had actual or constructive knowledge that the claimant was likely to be placed at that disadvantage.

[116]The claimant informed the respondent through Inspector Singh of his hypothyroidism and mental health disabilities in June 2022. The respondent was aware of the claimant’s home address in Suffolk and of the length of commutes to Croydon and Suffolk locations. Inspector Singh was aware from her own knowledge of Hypothyroidism that it is capable of causing, amongst other things, extreme fatigue, stress and depression. Through her the respondent would reasonably have known that the claimant would be likely to suffer those disadvantages arising from extended travel (although her experience was that such symptoms could be effectively managed by medication). Furthermore, the Occupational Health reports refer to the length of the commute as an issue.

[117]In so far as it did not have actual knowledge, it would have discovered the above facts through reasonable inquiries. What steps could have been taken to avoid the disadvantage? The claimant suggests: Allowing the claimant to work from home for his full-time hours reviewable on a 12 monthly basis. Was it reasonable for the respondent to have to take those steps and when? Did the respondent fail to take those steps?

[118]It is common ground that the respondent did not at any time agree to an adjustment which permitted the claimant to work from home for his full-time hours reviewable on a 12-month basis. Case No: 2301131-2024 28

[119]The adjustment sought by the claimant was, in substance, that he be permitted to carry out his work as an Operational Police Officer working within the Command and discharging the Duty by working 40 hours per week exclusively from home for the foreseeable future (but subject to annual review).

[120]The question is whether the law required the respondent to make that adjustment as being reasonable, or some other reasonable adjustment to avoid the disadvantage experienced by the claimant.

[121]The adjustment proposed by the claimant would be an effective adjustment because it would remove the need for any kind of commute entirely and thereby entirely avoid the excessive fatigue and mental health symptoms associated with his disabilities arising in response to the long commute necessary to attend the usual or nearest police building.

[122]The respondent’s position is that an adjustment which provided for full-time working from home permanently (i.e: other than temporarily or during periods necessary for recuperation or return to work protocols which have an end date in prospect) would be impracticable and unreasonable in all the circumstances including from its point of view and in light of the nature of the work performed by the claimant.

[123]As to this:- a) The claimant was (and wished to continue in his role as) an Operational Police Officer carrying out the Duty within the Command working full-time (40 hours per week or equivalent); b) The evidence of, principally, PS Bowers and CI Miles, which I accept as being consistent with the documentary policies (in particular the Duty Policy and Guidance documents), was that an Operational PO in this role was required to, amongst other things(i) access secure systems and receive secure information from such systems in order to carry out intelligence checks (albeit with declining frequency after 2023) and to update Duty information - a daily or weekly requirement depending on the nature of the work)

(ii) attend meetings held at classified levels with other agencies (which could be planned but exceptionally might be on a day or two’s notice)

(iii) deliver training on the Duty to other officers as part of a statutory obligation of the respondent and to attend mandatory training where that was (occasionally) held in person;

(iv) to undertake certain taskings which other units might require/request – an activity which occurred weekly or monthly

(v) to attend multiagency/partner panel meetings in order to represent the police officer’s own cases from a position of knowledge and engagement attend partner agency meetings in person (and I accept PS Bowers’ evidence that such agencies are increasingly returning to in person meetings). Case No: 2301131-2024 29 c) A PO working solely from home cannot carry out these functions. To adopt WFH as a permanent (or de facto permanent) adjustment would have the practical effect that the respondent would be employing a PO in the specialist Duty role who would never, or not for the foreseeable future, carry out these functions. d) There was a difference between the parties about the extent to which these requirements existed in practical reality. The claimant’s position broadly was that the occasions when a physical presence at a police building was in fact required were in reality vanishingly rare, and he pointed out that there was no detailed evidence from the respondent as to the frequency with which these matters arose nor any detailed evidence showing the impact of his absences from MPS buildings on colleagues. He relied upon the respondent’s working pattern record which suggested that a number of officers were ‘non-deployable’ and/or WFH. The respondent’s witnesses nevertheless maintained that these were real requirements of the job in the context of Duty work, although they accepted that these activities could be ad hoc and that immediate or urgent issues that arose in the absence of a particular Police Officer who was not in the building could be undertaken by other colleagues. They suggested that the claimant’s appreciation of the operational position was unreliable because of his extended absence from the workplace. e) However, the respondent made two points which had, in my judgment, particular resonance. First, whilst some work on a case, could be done at home - for example internet or desk-based intelligence research - and other work which required physical presence in a location or MPS buildings could be covered by colleagues (for example accessing a secure system in an MPS building or covering an in person partner agency meeting on behalf of the claimant) management of a case in this way through other colleagues increased the risk of miscommunication. The respondent had had experience of devastating consequences when miscommunication between colleagues led to intelligence ‘falling between the cracks’. Second, and connected with the first, work in relation to the Duty is of particular public importance. At the same time, CI Miles’ evidence was that widening of the scope of and increase in Duty workload and difficulties in recruitment of POs to work on Duty work meant that the respondent was experiencing significant operational challenges in delivering the Duty so that the work of any officer which had to be picked up by other colleagues was falling on a team that was already stretched. It is clear that Duty Pos need specialist training. The claimant challenged the respondent’s assertions as being at best generalised, and submitted that the evidence that his working from home caused operational harm was lacking or inconsistent. He said that his having worked well from home since 2022 was evidence from which to infer that the arrangement was working well and that the Case No: 2301131-2024 30 adjustment he sought was reasonable, and it was only rejected as a policy response (not tied specifically to his medical circumstances) when he made a formal request that was considered by the SLT. f) Weighing these competing arguments, I conclude that whilst there is some force in the claimant’s criticisms of the lack of specific detail of the operational impacts, and of shortcomings in the process undertaken by the SLT in deciding to reject his application for the reasonable adjustment he seeks, my focus must be on the effectiveness of the adjustments rather than on the process involved in getting to them. I find also that his assessment of the demands of the work and of the operational impacts of his absence from the workplace are less reliable because of his extended period of absence, and the fact that he has in fact been on reduced or adjusted work. On the other hand, although expressed in general terms, the operational impacts are likely to be appreciated most clearly by senior officers with responsibilities to manage them. It is self-evident to some extent that the work of an absent colleague will need to be picked up by other colleagues. I accept as inherently plausible that the nature of the work involved in the Duty might make recruitment, training and retention of specialist POs more difficult. So that this is not simply a case of a respondent refusing to fund a reasonable adjustment request. The situation is more complex and nuanced. g) Inspector Singh also referenced the limitations on management providing supervision and welfare support for wholly remote working. I accept that such limitations exist, and that these involve a degree of prejudice, albeit minor, to the respondent. h) The respondent accepts it has facilitated the claimant working exclusively from home for long periods of time since 2022. However, it contends that this has been in response to the claimant’s need for reasonable adjustments to allow him to recuperate from illness, and facilitate a return to full duties (as reasonably adjusted). I accept that this is a correct characterisation of the position. An adjustment which envisages a permanent, or established albeit annually reviewable adjustment of working from home requires a distinct assessment of the balance of reasonableness. It does not follow that it would be reasonable merely because it has de facto been in place for some time.

[124]In summary I find that there would be marked organisational prejudice to the respondent arising from an adjustment that provided for the claimant to work exclusively from home on an annually reviewable or permanent basis.

[125]Secondly I take into account also the latest OH report that described the claimant as medically unfit to attend a workplace to enable him to achieve Case No: 2301131-2024 31 the required office attendance under the current Hybrid Working policy. This report in my judgment identified as the critical issue the difficulties experienced by the claimant with concentration after a long commute. In referring to the claimant’s fitness for office attendance, it identifies the attendance required by the current Hybrid Policy (that is to say full-time, subject to a 20% WFH flexibility). It also indicated that this position would be unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. In reality, although the claimant’s proposed adjustment was expressed to be subject to annual review, the current advice indicates that the position would be unlikely to change.

[126]Thirdly, and consistently with the medical report as I understand it, in striking the balance I take into account the fact that, as I have found, the substantial disadvantage arising from his disability arose only where the PCP as it was applied to the claimant required a degree of intensity and repetition of the requirement to travel long distances.

[127]In all the circumstances, and balancing the factors I conclude that the claimant’s proposed adjustment which involves permitting his working from home for all of his full working hours permanently, or for the foreseeable future (thereby avoiding the need to attend and travel to a police building at all) exceeds that which would be necessary for the claimant to avoid suffering a significant disadvantage compared to other colleagues who were not similarly disabled, and exceeds what is required as a reasonable adjustment. I consider to be an essential element of the work of an Operational Police Officer working on the Duty to attend an MPS location for the purposes described above for at least some Duty work (the requirement is applicable to Police Officers generally as reflected in the Metropolitan Police Commissioner’s New Met for London 2023-2025 two year plan).

[128]Stepping back I consider that a lesser or different adjustment could be made which avoids the substantial disadvantage to the claimant from the application of the PCP, but which preserves to a reasonable degree the requirement to attend at an MPS location and balances the organisational prejudice for the respondent arising from permanent or foreseeable non-attendance.

[129]The respondent has already put in place the following adjustments to facilitate the claimant’s recuperation. Together these reasonably address the particular substantial disadvantage experienced by the claimant: a) Compressed hours (4 x 10 hour shifts) which reduces commuting time in the course of the working week; b) The use of Stratford as an office reducing the claimant’s commute to 2 hours each way; Case No: 2301131-2024 32 c) Flexibility on attendance days and start times of shifts to assist the claimant to manage the position as symptoms of tiredness and loss of concentration fluctuate or increase over the course of a working week of repeated commuting; d) Adjustments to the claimant’s case load by i) reducing the overall case load and ii) allocating to other colleagues more complex cases, or cases foreseeably likely to require greater degrees of secure and in person engagement so far as operationally feasible (I note that PS Bowers suggests the latter might not be feasible but I make no finding on the point) and iii) Making organisational arrangements to allow the claimant as far as possible to manage his own caseload and to take informal and regular breaks. These adjustments will tend to reduce the mental load on the claimant overall so as to allow him to concentrate to the best of his ability, and reduce the frequency and intensity of travel required; e) Permitted absence to attend medical appointments and work on his physical health. This self-evidently would contribute towards the claimant’s mental wellbeing as well as his prospects for physical improvement; f) Permitting attendance at training remotely where permissible and practicable, and providing overnight accommodation to reduce travel stress and the overall length of day where in person training is mandated; g) Pausing or adjusting phased returns to work as required to assist the claimant to build up resilience over time.

[130]The respondent has also offered the claimant opportunities to carry out a different role from nearer locations, and explored (unsuccessfully) whether other units, or a supporting rather than operational role might accommodate full time working from home.

[131]It is not clear whether consideration has been given to whether the claimant could carry out the operational role on a part-time rather than full time basis, and whether such an offer has been made. If operationally and organisationally practicable this would involve a reduction in attendance and travel requirements and could amount to a reasonable adjustment, although neither party made submissions on this point and I make no finding about it.

[132]The respondent submitted that having regard to all the circumstances and considering the adjustments that have been put in place already, the respondent has not discriminated against the claimant by failing in its duty to make reasonable adjustments. I agree.

[133]The claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments is therefore not well-founded and is dismissed. Case No: 2301131-2024 33

[134]Another way to analyse the position is that the PCP of requiring Police Officers working on the Duty to attend a Met location for some portion of their working time was in fact only applied to the claimant in a way which did not trigger the obligation to make a reasonable adjustment. The result in either case is the same. Indirect Disability Discrimination: Analysis and Conclusions Did the respondent have the following PCP: The requirement for police officers to work from a police building? Did the respondent apply the PCP to the claimant? Did the respondent apply the PCP to persons with whom the claimant does not share the protected characteristic (ie to disabled and non-disabled officers alike) or would it have done so?

[135]It is clear from my conclusions above that the answer to these issues is in the affirmative. The respondent operated a PCP, encapsulated in the New Met for London two-year plan, and the Blended and Hybrid working policies, which required all Police Officers to spend at least some of their time in an MPS building. The relevant pool for comparative purposes is the pool of all Police Officers.

[136]The PCP which was in fact applied to the claimant was a requirement that Police Officers working in the Command on the Duty should work from a police building for at least some portion of their working time.

[137]The PCP in each case applied both to disabled and non-disabled police officers. Did the PCP put persons with whom the claimant shares the characteristic, at a particular disadvantage when compared with persons with whom the claimant does not share the characteristic, in that: Someone suffering from symptoms of hypothyroidism and depression will find the stress, anxiety and fatigue caused by a lengthy commute on public transport substantially more difficult which will lead to worsening health.

[138]The respondent submitted that the correct pool is all Police Officers, and that the claimant bears the burden of proving the group disadvantage – i.e: that more employees within that pool who shared the claimant’s particular characteristic disabilities were disadvantaged by the PCP than others (‘others’ being those within the same pool who had no, or had different disabilities.) I accept this analysis is correct.

[139]The respondent submits that there is simply no evidence before me upon which the claimant can establish the group disadvantage required by EQA s19. There is neither statistical, expert nor lay evidence, and there is no basis upon which I can make any assumptions about how the PCP will affect other disabled and non-disabled people. Case No: 2301131-2024 34

[140]In response the claimant points to the respondent’s own Equality Impact Assessment which states that “the full-time office requirement "may not be achievable for some operational colleagues." Data shows that over 90% of disabled police officers work in operational roles where the requirement applies. This makes it more likely that disabled officers, including those with fatigue- and stress-related conditions, are disadvantaged.

[141]This evidence is wholly insufficient to establish the fact of, or facts from which an inference or finding of group disadvantage can be made.

[142]I reach the same conclusion even if the pool is drawn more narrowly so as to encompass only Police Officers in the Command working on the Duty.

[143]The claim of indirect disability discrimination therefore fails because the claimant has not discharged the burden of proving group disadvantage.

[144]If I am wrong, and I ought to have concluded that the claimant has discharged the burden of proving the PCP, group disadvantage and actual disadvantage, the respondent submits in the alternative that there is a clear justification (s19(2)(d)) defence for the PCP.

[145]The respondent relies upon the following legitimate aims as justifying the PCP:(a) The need for police officers to effectively discharge the full range of their duties;

(b) To ensure the continuity, efficiency and resilience of the Police Service at a proportionate cost to the public;

(c) Ensuring that there are adequate officers on duty in order to discharge the Respondent’s statutory duty to investigate crimes and to protect the public;

(d) Becoming a more frontline focused Police Service by prioritising officers and staff who work directly with the public, so they have what they need to provide the best service to Londoners;

(e) To maintain an efficient and resilient Police Service to provide the best possible service to the public;

(f) To support the Respondent’s communities first approach by prioritising Londoners it serves in everything it does, listening to them and working with them to solve problems;

(g) To maintain appropriate standards, in terms of service delivery, in the Police Service;

(h) To protect the welfare of officers; and Case No: 2301131-2024 35

(i) The needs and importance of collaborative working between police officers in reaching these aims.

[146]Mr Pickett amplified the importance to the respondent of these aims in general terms in his witness statement. Mr Healy summarised the position as being that the best way for the respondent to protect the public and discharge its statutory duties is to require POs to spend at least some of their working time in police buildings.

[147]In his responsive submissions the claimant contended that he had carried out his role exclusively from home for two years on restricted duties and no objections or problems were raised, and no data as to adverse impacts on colleagues was presented in evidence. I have considered these points in substance in connection with the claim for reasonable adjustments, and in short I find they are not a persuasive answer to the respondent’s justification defence.

[148]I am satisfied that the PCP requiring Police Officers to spend a proportion of their time at an MPS location was imposed in pursuit of the legitimate aim of providing an effective and efficient police service for the protection of the public and the discharge of the respondent’s statutory duties, and of maximising and maintaining standards of delivery within the service. These overarching concerns and the organisational response is clearly and consistently emphasised in the frameworks, policies and plans I have been referred to. There was no detailed evidence of financial constraints and so I disregard justifications based on cost alone.

[149]For the reasons considered above, I am not persuaded that the measure which the claimant contended would have been a proportionate measure for the respondent to have taken to avoid any particular disadvantage. The lesser measures outlined above would have been proportionate in all the circumstances, and were in fact put in place by the respondent.

[150]Accordingly, if I ought to have concluded that the claimant had established group and individual disadvantage, I would nevertheless have found that the respondent would have made out a defence of justification for the PCP.

[151]The claim of indirect disability discrimination is therefore not well-founded and is dismissed. Approved by Employment Judge N Cox Date: 31 October 2025 Amended Pursuant to Employment Tribunal Rules 2024 Rule 67 Date: 14 February 2026 Case No: 2301131-2024 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL Claimant: Paul Heard Respondent: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Heard at LONDON SOUTH By CVP On: 1 to 4 July 2025 Before Chairman: EMPLOYMENT JUDGE N COX Appearances: For the Claimant: In person For the Respondent: Mr S Healy (Counsel)

[1]The complaint of indirect disability discrimination is not well-founded and is dismissed.

[2]The complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability is not well-founded and is dismissed. Approved by