Doyle v Chief Constable Of Northumbra Police

Compensation for disability discrimination is recoverable only for loss caused by the discriminatory act. A claimant cannot recover a benefit merely because a later, independent event would have created an opportunity to obtain it.

Where the quashing of a medical certificate made a fresh referral necessary irrespective of the failure to make a reasonable adjustment, that intervening event broke the causal link. Sick pay and retrospective payments dependent on a later medical retirement were therefore not compensable as loss flowing from the discrimination.

The Employment Tribunal upheld Ms Doyle's complaint that the Northumbria Police Authority had failed to make a reasonable adjustment by declining to appoint a replacement Selected Medical Practitioner. It nevertheless refused compensation for lost sick pay and retrospective payments following her medical retirement.

Ms Doyle appealed that refusal. She contended that, had a new practitioner been appointed after an earlier certificate was quashed, she would probably have been regarded as likely to retire on medical grounds and would have received payments under the Force's Attendance Management Procedure.

The central issue was whether the alleged sick-pay losses were caused by the discriminatory failure to appoint a new practitioner.

1. Appeal dismissed. Although the Tribunal had erred in finding that a further referral supported by the psychiatric reports would not probably have led the Chief Constable to regard medical retirement as likely, that error could not affect the result.

2. The relevant opportunity for the Force Medical Adviser to reconsider the material supplied to the Selected Medical Practitioner arose because the earlier certificate had been quashed and a fresh referral was required. It did not arise because the Authority failed to appoint a replacement practitioner. That independent event broke the chain of causation between the failure to make a reasonable adjustment and any sick pay payable under paragraph (1) of the guidance.

3. The Tribunal had also approached paragraph (2) incorrectly. The discretion to make a retrospective payment was triggered simply by the officer's eventual medical retirement, rather than by a prior strong likelihood of retention. Nevertheless, retirement, not the discriminatory act, triggered that discretion. The same absence of causal connection therefore prevented recovery of a retrospective payment as discrimination compensation.

4. The mandatory minimum payment under paragraph (5) was likewise triggered by retirement on medical grounds, so could not be recovered as loss caused by the discrimination. Questions concerning the Chief Constable's discretion under paragraph (3), including whether it applied to paragraph (1), did not require decision.

5. The reasoning did not determine any possible contractual claim against the Chief Constable. Such a claim would depend on incorporation of the Attendance Management Procedure, though paragraph (5) appeared not to be subject to the discretionary reservation.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: dismissed the claimant's appeal against the refusal of compensation for sick pay and retrospective payments.
• Employment Tribunal: upheld a reasonable-adjustments claim against the Northumbria Police Authority, but rejected the claimed sick-pay loss as compensation for that discrimination.