In the case of Katrina Hibbert vs The Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police, Hibbert was awarded over £1 million after her employer discriminated against her by withdrawing permission for a side business that supported her mental health while she was on sick leave.
The circumstances
Katrina Hibbert began her career with Thames Valley Police in 2004, quickly establishing herself as a dedicated officer. By 2017, she was promoted to the role of safeguarding sergeant, where she worked with vulnerable young people facing severe risks, such as child sexual exploitation and drug abuse. This position was emotionally taxing, contributing to the development of mental health issues, including anxiety, depression, and PTSD stemming from past trauma.
Recognising the intensity of her work and its impact on her mental health, Hibbert sought assistance from occupational health professionals, who advised her to pursue hobbies outside of her police duties. In September 2018, she proposed starting a party tent business, believing it would provide a “happy and creative distraction” that would help her cope with the stress of her job. The police department approved her request in October, recognising the positive outlet this venture could provide. However, when Hibbert was signed off sick due to stress in May 2019, her line manager raised concerns regarding her ability to manage the business during her absence.
Despite the therapeutic benefits that the business had afforded her, the police force unilaterally withdrew her permission to operate it while she was off work, citing concerns about her ability to fulfil her duties. This decision was made without consulting Hibbert or obtaining medical advice on the implications of this withdrawal, leading to a significant deterioration in her mental health and culminating in her eventual resignation.
The claims and judgement findings
Hibbert’s claims against Thames Valley Police included constructive dismissal, disability discrimination, and a failure to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. She argued that the withdrawal of her business permission was not only discriminatory but also constituted a breach of trust and confidence in her employment relationship.
During the tribunal, Employment Judge Hawksworth found that Hibbert’s Complex PTSD was indeed a disability under the Act. The judge emphasised that the withdrawal of her business authorisation constituted unfavourable treatment directly linked to her disability, as it was triggered by her prolonged sick leave. The tribunal also established that the police force’s Business Interests Policy placed Hibbert at a disadvantage compared to her peers, as it led to an automatic review of her business authorisation due to her sickness record.
The tribunal concluded that Thames Valley Police failed to explore reasonable adjustments that could have allowed Hibbert to continue her business in a modified capacity. Instead of making allowances for her to engage in non-public-facing aspects of the business, the force opted for a blanket withdrawal of permission, which the judge deemed both disproportionate and discriminatory.
Ultimately, the tribunal upheld Hibbert’s claims and awarded her a total of £1,176,368. This figure included compensation for financial losses due to her employment termination, personal injury damages, and compensation for injury to feelings. The judgment highlighted the importance of a nuanced understanding of employee wellbeing, particularly in high-stress professions like policing.
Learning points for employers
This case demonstrates the importance of understanding and accommodating employees with disabilities under the Equality Act. An inability to perform in one role may not necessarily mean an inability to perform in a different role, venture or course of employment. Employers should engage in thorough consultations before making decisions that affect employees’ health and wellbeing. It is important to seek updated medical opinions and to provide employees with the opportunity to present their views before any significant actions are taken. Failure to do so may lead to claims of discrimination and constructive dismissal, resulting in substantial financial and reputational consequences for the organisation.
We’re here to help
For more articles like this or for regular employment law updates, sign up to our newsletter here.
Get in touch with us today by calling us on 0844 324 5840 or completing one of our contact forms.
