A police officer was treated unfavourably and discriminated against when she was rejected from firearms training because she is autistic.
Miss Crawford, a police officer with Cumbria Police, was rejected from progressing onto an initial firearms course because of details included in a personal profile document the police force should not have retained, despite having received positive feedback from her colleagues.
The tribunal sitting in Manchester found that she had suffered direct disability discrimination, indirect disability discirmination and had been treated unfavourably because of her disability.
Crawford, a police constable, wished to progress in her career by becoming an armed firearms officer (AFO).
When she joined the force in 2016, she informed managers that she was dyslexic and autistic. She was not required to disclose the conditions but felt it was the “right thing to do”.
She was referred to the occupational health department to see if she would need any reasonable adjustments. She brought in a personal profile that had been prepared ahead of her autism diagnosis a few years before she joined the police. This did not contain any work-related information and was not referred to in the OH report, but was retained by the police force.
The OH doctor found that her dyslexia and autism did not appear to have any significant adverse effects on her ability to carry out her role as a police officer, and she was declared fit to continue in her duties.
In 2019, Crawford applied to become an AFO. She passed a fitness test, an advanced driving assessment and a suitability test, but her application was held up by medical screening. It was decided that more information was needed about her neurodiverse conditions.
Several more experienced colleagues recommended that she progress onto the firearms course, however Deputy Chief Constable (DCC) Webster declined her application.
The tribunal found that Webster had not seen a copy of her application before he made the decision. He relied extensively on the profile document and it was his view that, given the claimant had referred to difficulties in social settings, that this
must affect social situations at work.
In a letter outlining his decision, he quoted the words from Crawford’s personal profile: “I have a diagnosis of ASD [autism spectrum disorder]. This means I genuinely have difficulty with the following areas”, and he listed various traits under bullet points, including “understanding verbal and non-verbal language, making sense of other people’s emotions, feelings and behaviours”.
Webster told the tribunal that he did not know that the claimant was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, but the tribunal said that he ought to have been aware of this.
Employment judge Katherine Ross found that nobody who worked directly with the claimant had made Webster aware of any of Crawford’s personal traits or qualities that caused them concern about her suitability to be an AFO.
Crawford raised a grievance about the decision, but was told there was “no power” to reconsider a decision made by the DCC.
The judgment says that a hypothetical comparator with the same qualities as the claimant but no diagnosis of autism or dyslexia would not have been “flagged” up.
It says: “Her own GP had recommended her for the AFO and no issues had come back from any other source suggesting unsuitability. Her first and second commanders and her inspector had all approved her form. There were no issues in the Police Standards arena and her confidential screening had come back clear. The only thing that flagged the claimant to Mr Webster was her diagnosis of autism and dyslexia in conjunction with the personal profile document which had been erroneously retained on her occupational health file. A hypothetical comparator without that the diagnosis of the disability of autism or dyslexia would not have been picked up.”
The judge said: “The tribunal has also taken into account that Webster never saw the claimant’s application form and never met with her prior to his decision. He relied extensively on a document that was clearly out of date and no longer directly relevant.
“The personal profile document is entirely at odds with the picture painted of the claimant by her application, her superiors and the fact she had worked successfully for four years at that time as a police constable without any adjustments in place relating to ASD.”
A remedy hearing will take place in January.
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
HR opportunities in the public sector on Personnel Today
Browse more HR opportunities in the public sector
