A Northern Ireland industrial tribunal has dismissed all claims brought by a PSNI constable who alleged disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments following her dismissal on capability grounds in 2022. The unanimous decision, issued following hearings in Belfast, found that Louise Judge had not established the grounds necessary for any of her claims to succeed against the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

Judge, who served as a constable in the Neighbourhood Policing Team in the Derry City/Strabane District from November 2007, was dismissed on 23 May 2022 with effect from 26 June 2022, having been continuously absent from work since 19 September 2021. Her claims were brought under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and covered three areas: failure to make reasonable adjustments, direct discrimination on grounds of disability, and harassment on grounds of disability. A separate unfair dismissal claim was withdrawn at the outset, as the claimant accepted the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear such a claim involving a police officer.

The tribunal, chaired by Employment Judge O Murray and sitting with members Mr B Heaney and Mr A Kerr, accepted that Judge had two qualifying disabilities at the relevant time - longstanding back problems relating to bulging discs, and a mental health condition. The respondent had already conceded the back condition. On the mental health question, the tribunal found sufficient evidence that Judge's depression, which had previously required medication, had relapsed following a triggering incident in September 2021. However, the tribunal noted that establishing disability status was not the end of the analysis.

Central to the case was whether the duty to make reasonable adjustments was ever triggered. The tribunal found that it was not, primarily because Judge remained certified as entirely unfit for any work throughout the relevant period. Her GP sick lines consistently stated she was unfit due to stress at work and at no point suggested adjustments to facilitate a return. The tribunal noted that while occupational health raised possible adjustments in February and March 2022 in the context of the claimant's expressed wish to return, it also confirmed she remained unfit at that time.

On the knowledge issue, the tribunal found the respondent did not have actual knowledge of the nature or extent of Judge's mental health condition beyond the fact that she was off with stress at work arising from an encounter with her line manager. The tribunal found that managers had made reasonable inquiries but that Judge had been reluctant to provide detail about her mental health history. The GP, who held the most complete picture, made no reference on any sick line to adjustments that might enable a return to work. As a result, the tribunal found the respondent was also entitled to rely on the knowledge exemption under the DDA in respect of any duty to make reasonable adjustments relating to the mental health disability.

On the direct discrimination and harassment claims, the tribunal rejected each in turn. It found that Sergeant Hughes, Judge's initial line manager, had acted appropriately in both the September 2021 workplace encounter and a subsequent visit to Judge's home in October 2021 to deliver documents relating to the absence management process. The tribunal accepted that Sergeant Hughes spoke civilly to Judge during the September encounter and visited the home with a legitimate administrative purpose. Four proposed comparators - Constables A, W, B and M - were each found to have circumstances that differed materially from Judge's, and the tribunal found their treatment could not support an inference that a hypothetical comparator would have been treated differently.

Regarding the offer of a role in the Volume Crime Support Team, which the respondent put forward as a suitable adjusted post, the tribunal found that Chief Inspector Beatty had conducted a thorough assessment of available roles in line with the respondent's disability management policy. The tribunal accepted his evidence that VCST represented a suitable option given that a vacancy existed, no training was required, it was closer to Judge's home, and it carried a very low risk of requiring physical force. The Police Appeal Tribunal, which had separately considered the dismissal, had also found the VCST offer to be reasonable. The tribunal noted that in any event, the question of a suitable role only became live once Judge was certified fit to return - a point that was never reached. All three of Judge's claims were dismissed.