The recent Employment Tribunal case of Town v The Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall Police involved a pregnant police officer who was removed from her front line responsibilities and placed in a desk based role in a different department against her wishes. In response to this she made claims against her employer, Devon and Cornwall Police, for pregnancy discrimination and indirect sex discrimination.
Town v The Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall Police
Case Background
Mrs Town was employed as a police constable in the Devon and Cornwall Police response team. In November 2017, she told her employer that she was pregnant but wished to stay in her front line role until she commenced her maternity leave, albeit with her responsibilities slightly reduced.
A risk assessment was undertaken which ascertained that Mrs Town was fit to remain in her front line role but that adjustments were required, which included having to wear plain clothing and having fewer night shifts.
However, despite the outcome of the risk assessment, Mrs Town was informed that from the 12th week of her pregnancy she would be assigned to the Crime Management Hub, which was an office based team that dealt with low level crime. The reason provided to her by the Police for this was that it addressed a “business need” and because of her restricted duties. There was a policy in place whereby those that had been on restricted duties for 2 weeks or more would be considered for a role in the Crime Management Hub.
Mrs Town went on sick leave with anxiety and depression from 22nd December 2017 to 9th February 2018. Her doctor and midwife believed that the onset of her condition had been as a result of her altered work duties.
When Mrs Town returned to work in February, a further risk assessment was undertaken, which found that the enforced role change had caused Mrs Town to suffer from anxiety, stress and stress-linked migraines.
In May 2018, Mrs Town returned to her original role in the response team but still had to undertake some “overflow” work from the Crime Management Hub. She then went on maternity leave in July.
Employment Tribunal Proceedings
Mrs Town commenced Employment Tribunal proceedings against Devon and Cornwall Police on the grounds of pregnancy discrimination and indirect sex discrimination. In their defence, the Police maintained that Mrs Town’s pregnancy was not the reason for her role change.
The Employment Tribunal ruled in favour of Mrs Town, finding that she had been treated unfavourably because she was pregnant, and that the Police had disregarded the risk assessment that had initially been undertaken. It also found that the practice of considering those that had been on restricted duties for more than two weeks for a role in the Crime Management Hub was indirectly discriminatory to female employees as pregnancy would likely be an automatic trigger for the policy.
The Employment Tribunal Judge, David Harris, commented in the judgment:
“It removed her from a working environment that she found particularly supportive, against the background of the miscarriage that she had recently suffered, and removed her from work that she valued and enjoyed. Indeed, it was the very work that the claimant had joined the police to be able to do,”
A further hearing will now take place to ascertain what compensation should be awarded to Mrs Town.
Comment
Within the judgment, the Employment Tribunal Judge commented that the Police had “lost sight” of Mrs Town’s pregnancy and instead saw her “simply as a person with certain physical restrictions”.
This case serves as a reminder to employers of the importance of undertaking risk assessments for pregnant employees and carefully considering the recommendations made. In this case, the risk assessment was carried out but, rather than implementing the recommendations, the Police decided to completely remove Mrs Town from the department she wanted to stay in. Perhaps the decision (to remove her from front line duty) was well meant but the result was to impact Mrs Town’s health during her pregnancy.
It is also important for employers to consider the individual consequences of applying policies across the board. Whilst the practice of moving those who had been on restricted duties for more than 2 weeks to an office based role may, in many cases, have been a practical one, by not giving thought to the impact this would have on Mrs Town and her particular circumstances they were found to have discriminated against her.
How Nelsons Can Help
Laura Kearsley is a partner in our expert employment law team.
For further information or to comment on this article, please contact a member of the team in Derby, Leicester or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online form.