Disability discrimination claim dismissed as it was found that the respondent did not have knowledge of a mental health impairment.  Stress at work on GP notes was not sufficient to demonstrate a disability in line with the Disability Discrimination Act.

The claimant was a PSNI Constable based in the Derry City/Strabane District.  She served from November 2007 until her dismissal in 2022.  A claim for unfair dismissal was brought but withdrawn on the basis that the Industrial Tribunal cannot adjudicate upon dismissals relating to police officers.

The claimant was dismissed on the grounds of capability as the claimant had been off sick continuously from September 2021 until the decision being made in May 2022. The claim was largely based upon the duty to make reasonable adjustments.  Namely, the claimant stated that there should have been adjustments made throughout the attendance management process as regards penalties and that there should have been a suitable role to facilitate a return to work.  The medical evidence outlines that the claimant was vulnerable to workplace stress due to traumatic childhood experience and she suffered from a mental impairment amounting to a disability from mid-2021.

The claimant was offered a role in the Volume Crime Support Team but the respondent did state that the duty to make reasonable adjustments had not been triggered under the Disability Discrimination Act.

An issue arose in October 2021 during the sickness absence in which a Sergeant conducted a home visit to hand-deliver letters. The claimant was aggrieved by this as she was taken by surprise.  The respondent outlined that it as just to deliver letters rather than there being any encounter which happened because the claimant was in her driveway.

It was conceded by the respondent that the claimant had a disability within the definitions in the Disability Discrimination Act. However, it had to be shown that the respondent had knowledge of this in terms of knowing that there was a duty to make reasonable adjustments.

In terms of the visit the Tribunal found that it was not a detriment but actually the respondent was trying to allow for speedy communication of important documents. The Tribunal did note that it was unwise to visit the claimant’s home without any notice but they accepted the explanation.

As the sickness absence continued, this went through the stages of the absence management process within the PSNI.  Throughout this process the claimant stated that the absence would not be regarded as satisfactory by the PSNI until they recognised mental health illness being as debilitating as physical injury. It went to Stage 3 where the panel found that the claimant was not engaging in trying to find a pathway back to work and that the outcome was to be dismissed with notice. The claimant appealed to the Police Appeal Tribunal and this was rejected as they found that the offer of the Volume Crime Support Team role was reasonable.

The Tribunal held that the duty to make reasonable adjustments had not arisen as the respondent did not have knowledge of the claimant’s mental health disability. This was on the basis that managers were aware of a back issue but not of a history of mental illness.  They did receive sick notes from the GP outlining stress at work but they did not outline adjustments that were to be made.  The Tribunal found that the knowledge of the mental health impairment should not be imputed to the respondent.  In the alternative, the Tribunal found that even if there was the duty to make reasonable adjustments the respondent had satisfied this by offering the other role.  As a result, the claims were dismissed.

This case demonstrates the importance of knowledge in relation to a disability when it comes to a disability discrimination claim - especially those focusing on reasonable adjustments.  The Tribunal held here that it was not sufficient that the GP notes stated stress at work and that did not mean the respondent had knowledge of a mental health impairment amounting to a disability nor did it mean that such a knowledge should be imputed onto the respondent.

You can read the case in full here.