0370 270 6000

Police officers successfully claim discrimination following their compensation being capped

9 March 2020

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in Chief Constable of Gwent Police v Parsons and Roberts was asked to consider whether capping compensation for two disabled police officers amounted to unfavourable treatment pursuant to section 15 Equality Act 2010.

Here, the two claimants were police officers who were disabled under the Equality Act 2010 and held “H1 certificates” which entitled them to immediate access to their pension when they left the police, as opposed to deferring it until their retirement date.

In 2016, the Chief Constable of Gwent Police adopted the Home Office’s voluntary exit scheme (similar to a voluntary redundancy scheme), and when the claimants chose to leave the force under this scheme, their compensation lump sums were both capped at 6 months’ pay when they would have otherwise received 21 and 18 months’ pay. This was said to be on the basis that “differing factors” applied to them, namely that they both held H1 certificates. As a result of this, both claimants brought claims in Cardiff Employment Tribunal contending that the capping of their compensation payments amounted to unfavourable treatment under section 15 Equality Act 2010.

The Employment Tribunal found in both of the claimants’ favour. Upon appeal, in upholding the Employment Tribunal’s decision, the EAT distinguished the case from Williams v Trustees of Swansea University Pension and Assurance Scheme [2018] UKSC 65 on the grounds that while ‘the award of a pension’ in the Williams case was not unfavourable treatment, capping the compensation lump sum was entirely different and was clearly unfavourable. Moreover, the EAT rejected the Chief Constable’s argument that it was able to objectively justify the unfavourable treatment on the basis that, by capping the payments, it was preventing the claimants from receiving a ‘windfall’.

This case serves as a helpful reminder to employers of the application of section 15 of the Equality Act 2010. In particular, it reinforces previous case law that saving money is not in itself a legitimate aim when trying to objectively justify unfavourable treatment. While the EAT acknowledged here that preventing claimants from receiving a ‘windfall’ could be a legitimate aim, it held that insufficient evidence had been presented by the Chief Constable to raise a justification case based on preventing a windfall or otherwise. Employers must always consider whether the action they are considering taking can in fact be regarded as reasonably necessary and proportionate.

Related opinions

New mothers suffer a cumulative loss of income of £66,434 over the following decade

Independent think-tank, the Social Market Foundation (“SMF”), has launched a cross-party parliamentary commission on childcare and its implications for mothers.

View blog

New rules for Fit Notes

Where employees are absent from work due to sickness for more than 7 days, they need to provide reasonable medical evidence in respect of that absence for statutory sick pay purposes – this is most frequently satisfied through the provision of a Statement of Fitness for Work, otherwise known as a Fit Note.

View blog

80% hours for 100% pay? That’ll do nicely

As has been widely reported this week, some 3,000 UK workers are taking part in a six month trial to assess the viability of a four-day working week without any reduction in their normal pay.

View blog

Vaccinations in the Workplace: a higher expectation than one may think

There is currently no legislation requiring employees within the UK to have the COVID-19 vaccine. However, a recent Acas survey found that approximately 22% of employers intend to require their new staff to have the COVID-19 vaccination, and 21% would require their existing staff to be vaccinated too.

View blog

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up