The claimant was a serving police officer.  She notified her line manager that she was pregnant on 21st November 2017.    Under internal police force guidance there had to be a risk assessment carried out, which was duly done.  As a result, the line manager advised that the claimant should be placed on restricted duties as a response officer.  This would mean that she would be in plain clothes, the jobs undertaken would be risk assessed and there was a recommendation in relation to night shifts.   The claimant was happy with this.  However, a month later there was a change which sought to move the claimant to the Crime Management Hub.  This was a back office role and would not involve responding to calls and would move her away from the team she had been working with.

At first instance, the Tribunal not only found that the change in role was against the wishes of the claimant but also went against the recommendation that was made a result of the risk assessment.  Furthermore, it was classified as a ‘retrograde’ step. Accordingly, there was a finding that the claimant had been discriminated against on the grounds of pregnancy and indirectly on the basis of sex.  The respondent appealed against the finding, citing that the treatment of the claimant in relation to pregnancy was one that involved removing her from danger and therefore was not unfavourable.  On indirect discrimination, they stated that the ‘particular disadvantage’ that had been cited by the Tribunal was only one that was borne by pregnant women and not women as a whole.

The EAT dismissed the grounds of appeal.  They stated that the move to the Crime Management Hub was one that went beyond the wishes of the claimant.  Furthermore, it had actually led to the claimant becoming unwell through depression, anxiety and migraines.  Therefore, it was deemed to be unfavourable treatment as a result of the claimant’s pregnancy.  As for the indirect discrimination claim, the EAT outlined that the respondent’s point was outside the scope of the legislation which meant that the criterion or practice did not have to apply to all women but if women were more likely to be subject to a transfer as a group then that would apply.  As it did apply, the appeal failed.

Practical Lessons

This case demonstrates how there is a need to ensure that risk assessments are carried out with the view that they should then be put into action.  When they are being put into action it is important to ensure that there is continued dialogue with the individual to ascertain their wishes.  It was clear that this was not done with the second change to the back office role. This went against the wishes of the claimant and subsequently led to ill-health.  Accordingly, where it is deemed that the demands of the role may need to be altered in a pregnancy situation there should be a collaborative approach taken to ensure that both health and safety and autonomy are taken into account.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5fdb82f7e90e0745298be3be/Chief_Constable_of_Devon_and_Cornwall_Police_v_Mrs_N_Town__UKEAT_0194_19_LA.pdf