The Employment Appeal Tribunal recently ruled in the case of Metropolitan Police v Denby (2017)
Metropolitan Police v Denby (2017): Background To The Case
A male police officer was placed under an internal and criminal investigation following complaints that some within the group that he led had claimed for overtime not worked. However, similar complaints had been made against a female police officer who held the same type of role as the male police officer. Nevertheless, the female police officer was not subjected to an internal and criminal investigation. At first instance, an Employment Tribunal found that the male police officer had been discriminated against and that the Respondent, the Metropolitan Police, were guilty of direct sex discrimination. The Metropolitan Police appealed the decision to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) Decision
The EAT upheld the original decision made by the Employment Tribunal.
One of the key issues that the EAT addressed was whether a person who influences a discriminatory decision in a discriminatory way can be held accountable as a joint decision maker. The EAT ruled that they can. In terms of this case, the Deputy Assistant Commissioner had had concerns about gender diversity within the group led by the male police officer, and the culture within that group. The Employment Tribunal found that the Deputy Assistant Commissioner had influenced, in a discriminatory way, the decision made by another to place the male officer under an internal and criminal investigation, and the EAT upheld this.
P v Metropolitan Police (2017)
In a separate case involving the Metropolitan Police, the Supreme Court ruled that police officers can bring a discrimination case against a police misconduct panel. The Court held that under EU law, citizens are entitled to protection from discrimination and that the UK cannot therefore deny police officers that entitlement