Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Reasonable adjustmentsPoliceEmployment lawDisability discrimination

Police officer forced to retire wins disability discrimination case

by Jo Faragher 30 Apr 2014
by Jo Faragher 30 Apr 2014 Photo: REX
Photo: REX

A police officer who was forced to retire following an injury has won £230,215 in compensation.

Mr Horler, who worked for the South Wales Police Service, brought a disability discrimination claim against his employer after it failed to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate his condition.

In 2009, Horler started to get pain and stiffness in his left knee because of torn cartilage. He was subsequently diagnosed with synovitis, a form of arthritis, and the force accepted that this condition met the definition of a disability under Equality Act 2010.

After his diagnosis, he was placed on restricted duties: firstly front desk duties; then the property stores; and then the domestic violence unit within the public protection unit. In October 2010, a medical adviser said Horler would be unlikely to return to frontline duty due to his injury.

XpertHR resources

Horler v Chief Constable of South Wales Police – full analysis of the implications of this case.

HR in the police service

Some time later, a doctor confirmed Horler would be unable to do “ordinary” police duties, and that he could therefore be considered for ill-health retirement under police regulations. Keen to keep working, Horler disagreed and claimed his condition was under control.

In 2011, Horler moved to another role as a camera room operator, but in August that year the force’s chief constable recommended that he be retired. Angered by this, Horler raised a grievance, at which point he was told the roles in the camera room were under review.

South Wales Police terminated his employment at the end of December 2011, and Horler brought a tribunal claim, alleging the force had failed to make reasonable adjustments as required by the Equality Act. He also made a claim for discrimination arising from disability.

The tribunal upheld his claims on both counts. It argued that reasonable adjustments could have been made, and that there had been a number of roles for which Horler would have been suitable and would have had a reasonable chance of obtaining.

On the claim of disability discrimination, had the force been able to justify unfavourable treatment on the basis that it was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, this might not have been upheld.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

However, the tribunal concluded that, while there was a legitimate aim of providing effective policing, the means adopted in this case were not proportionate because alternatives existed, and reasonable adjustments would not have made any difference to the force’s effectiveness.

This case follows an appeal by five police forces in March against the use of the ‘A19’ police regulation, which they claimed was used to select officers with more than 30 years service to leave ‘in the interests of efficiency’. The tribunal held that the forces’ use of A19 was not justified and amounted to unlawful indirect discrimination.

Jo Faragher

Jo Faragher has been an employment and business journalist for 20 years. She regularly contributes to Personnel Today and writes features for a number of national business and membership magazines. Jo is also the author of 'Good Work, Great Technology', published in 2022 by Clink Street Publishing, charting the relationship between effective workplace technology and productive and happy employees. She won the Willis Towers Watson HR journalist of the year award in 2015 and has been highly commended twice.

previous post
PT Awards profile: Reed Smith innovates in graduate recruitment
next post
HSE stress standards remain a valid tool, study says

You may also like

Call-handler sues Met Police over reinstatement of offensive...

28 May 2025

Sighing in frustration at colleague was discriminatory, judge...

23 May 2025

Fire and rehire: the relocation question

22 May 2025

Minister defends Employment Rights Bill at Acas conference

16 May 2025

CBI chair Soames accuses ministers of not listening...

16 May 2025

Union rep teacher awarded £370k for unfair dismissal

15 May 2025

EHRC bows to pressure and extends gender consultation

15 May 2025

Contract cleaner loses EAT race discrimination appeal

14 May 2025

Construction workers win compensation claim against defunct employer

9 May 2025

Zero-hours workers’ rights to be extended from beyond...

8 May 2025

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+