Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>The Advocate General for Scotland v Brown & The College of Policing [2024]
The Advocate General for Scotland v Brown & The College of Policing [2024]
Published on: 12/12/2024
Issues Covered: Discrimination
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Jason Elliott BL Lecturer in Law and Barrister
Jason Elliott BL Lecturer in Law and Barrister

Jason Elliott was called to the Bar of Northern Ireland in 2013 and is the Associate Head of School of Law at Ulster University.  As a practising barrister, he has developed a largely civil practice representing individuals, companies and public bodies in litigation. This covers a wide range of areas including personal injuries, wills and employment law. In terms of employment law, he has represented both applicants and respondents in the Industrial Tribunal.   At Ulster University, Jason lectures extensively on the civil areas of practise such as Equity and Trusts and delivers employment law lectures for both undergraduate and postgraduate students.

Background

Background: 

The claimant, Ms Brown, complained of the fitness level requirement for an authorised firearms officer in the Ministry of Defence police. She stated that it was a provision, criterion or practice which was discriminatory on the basis of sex. The claimant had become a constable in the Ministry of Defence Police in 2016 but the failure to complete the job related fitness test led to her service being terminated in October 2018.  It was a multi-stage fitness test which had to be passed. This is also known as the bleep test in which an individual runs up and down a 15 metre track timed against a series of bleeps. The bleeps getting shorter each time.   

As part of a review, it was found that there would be a slightly higher percentage of maximum heart rate for women undertaking the test but was considered to be within an acceptable limit for a test of physical fitness.  

Outcome: 

At first instance, the Tribunal found that the provision had been applied to the claimant and that it did put women at a disadvantage. They found that a requirement to test the fitness level was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim in relation to the requirement for those in the Ministry of Defence Police, which would be tasked with the most serious of issues including terrorism. However, the Tribunal went onto find that the application to the claimant individually was not proportionate as there was no alternative means of establishing whether the required standard of fitness had been attained. 

The Ministry of Defence Police, through the Advocate General for Scotland, appealed the finding of the Tribunal. The appeal was allowed in part. The part allowed related to the assessment of proportionality and the issue of alternative. The respondent argued successfully that the Tribunal had failed to outline the alternative means in question and whether those alternatives would have been proportionate and been less discriminatory.  With this in mind, the EAT allowed this part of the appeal and remitted the case back to the Tribunal.  

Practical Guidance for Employers: 

The finding in this case is interesting as despite finding that the provision was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims of the organisation it still found that there had been indirect discrimination. It was through distilling it down to the individual claimant and the need to provide an alternative to that provision that the case was successful.  Issues were found with that finding as seen with the EAT judgment here but may still stand when it is remitted if that less discriminatory alternative can be outlined by the Tribunal.   

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 12/12/2024