All sorts of provisions, criteria or practices (PCPs) that an employer may believe are justified for business or operational reasons might nevertheless be discriminatory. An Employment Tribunal (ET) made that point in the case of an ambitious police officer who was shifted to a back-office role after she became pregnant.
The woman was a front-line response officer, a role that she had always wanted. She was placed on restrictive duties after becoming pregnant but, following a risk assessment, her sergeant decided that she could, with some adjustments, remain part of her close and supportive team throughout her pregnancy.
However, senior management later took a different view and she was moved to a sedentary, office-based role in the relevant force’s crime management hub. As an ambitious constable, she viewed the transfer as a retrograde career step. She said that the requirement to transfer against her will, and the separation from her team, triggered stress, anxiety and migraines.
After she took action, an ET upheld her complaints of pregnancy discrimination and indirect sex discrimination, contrary to Sections 18 and 19 of the Equality Act 2010 respectively. It found that her transfer amounted to unfavourable treatment that arose directly from her pregnancy. It also found that pregnant officers, and therefore women, were more susceptible to enforced transfers under the PCP.
In dismissing the force’s challenge to that outcome, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) noted that it had apparently entirely ignored the results of the risk assessment, which expressly stated that, subject to certain adjustments, she was fit to remain in the response team.
Also rejecting an argument that the transfer was advantageous to her in that it removed her from the danger of front-line duties during her pregnancy, the EAT noted that it was close to obvious that being forced to do something against one’s wishes could be said to represent a particular disadvantage.
The PCP also placed such a disadvantage on women in general in that it could be triggered by pregnancy. It was an objective fact that a committed front-line officer would regard a transfer to a non-operational role as a backward career step. The amount of compensation due to the officer would be assessed at a further hearing, if not agreed.