Chief Constable of Cleveland Police

Case Summary

The claimant’s application to strike out the response was refused by Employment Judge Johnson. The case involved allegations of unlawful disability discrimination against the Cleveland Police.

• •denial of opportunities to act up as Acting Chief Inspector, perform the role of Temporary Chief Inspector and be promoted to the rank of Chief Inspector due to disability

1 THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr Peter Graham Respondent: Chief Constable of Cleveland Police Heard at: Newcastle upon Tyne Hearing Centre On: Friday 12 th Feb. and Wednesday 3 rd March 2021 PUBLIC PRELIMINARY HEARING BY CVP Before: Employment Judge Johnson Representation: Claimant: Mr E Gold of Counsel Respondent: Mr A Webster of Counsel JUDGMENT The claimant’s application to strike out the response is refused. REASONS 1. This matter came before this afternoon for further consideration of the claimant’s application dated 25 th January 2021, to strike out the response. The claimant was again represented by Mr Gold of Counsel and the respondent by Mr Webster of Counsel. 2. The claimant is a serving police officer in the Cleveland police force and currently has the rank of police inspector. By a claim form presented on 12 th March 2020, he brought complaints of unlawful disability discrimination, alleging that he has been denied the opportunity to act up as Acting Chief Inspector, to perform the role of Temporary Chief Inspector and/or to be promoted to the rank of Chief Inspector. The claimant alleges that denial of these opportunities amounts to direct discrimination because of his disability, unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of his disability and indirect discrimination contrary to Section 19 of the Equality Act 2010, because there is a requirement for 2 those persons appointed to the rank of Chief Inspector to be able to perform arrest, restraint and/or full officer safety training. 3. All allegations are denied by the respondent. The respondent presented its response on 10 th June 2020, in which no admission was made as to whether the claimant’s physical im…