Lancashire Police discriminated against one of its own officers in relation to her disability and then victimised her after she complained, an employment tribunal has found.

It also ruled that the force failed to make “reasonable adjustments” for the female officer, who had been formally diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression and anxiety.

At the tribunal hearing, a superintendent for the constabulary even likened PTSD to having a broken leg. During an investigation into a complaint by the woman, a chief superintendent said she was “difficult” to deal with.

The frontline officer who brought the claims against Lancashire Police had worked for the organisation since March 2003. She had a career break between 2010 and 2017, but shortly after returning to work, was signed off sick until November 2018 following a domestic violence incident.

The tribunal judgement details how the force dealt with her over the course of the next three-and-a-half years during its attempts to fulfil the officer's own ambition to return to her previous role full time - before taking early retirement on ill health grounds.

Much of the case - held on a series of dates between May 2023 and April this year - hinged on the exact type of return-to-work procedure that had been deployed by the constabulary in her case.

After restarting work in late 2018, she did a 12-hour week at Lancashire Police headquarters at Hutton. A further month-long absence followed in April the next year and her formal diagnosis came that August. By autumn 2019, she was working at the Crime Management Unit, based in Morecambe police station.

According to the written judgement , the woman was assessed by the end of that year to be making “a high level of progress” - but that, in reality, “there was absolutely no evidence to suggest that this was…the case”. A report by the force medical advisor in January 2020 stated that she had “by no means recovered”.

The tribunal concluded the aim of an eventual return to frontline policing was “a completely unrealistic objective”, but that “nobody was telling the claimant this clearly or at all - and therefore she was not satisfied with the working arrangements which the [force] offered her”.

Following a further period of sick leave between March and May 2020, Superintendent Chris Hardy - who was responsible for policing delivery in the Morecambe area at the time and who made the broken leg comparison at the tribunal - emailed the force’s HR department, expressing what the tribunal judgement described as “his feelings of frustration”.

He wrote: “...any ideas as this cannot go on like this!?!? I can’t even offer her meaningful work on the team as she can’t be public facing??”

In July that year, the officer was presented with four options that her representative at the tribunal described as “Hobson's choice” - a characterisation with which the panel agreed.

The possibilities outlined for her were neighbourhood policing duties, a further career break, a police staff role - for which she would have to resign as a police officer - or taking an ill-health pension.

The tribunal considered that the options were the result of her being unable to apply for a “budgeted post” as she had not been placed on “adjusted duties” under the force’s Limited Duties Policy.

The force began "unsatisfactory performance and attendance procedures" in relation to the officer in November 2020.

On 7th December, 2020, she presented a grievance about her treatment, alleging “bullying and harassments, discrimination and unfair working practices” - and indicating that she considered herself to have a disability. Just over a fortnight later, she was given a “written improvement notice”.

The claimant submitted a second grievance, on 23 December, 2020, and raised the issue of disability discrimination. This was one of three so-called “protected acts” relied upon by the officer for the purposes of her later victimisation complaint.

She suffered a “mental breakdown” early the following year and was again signed off sick. Soon after, she launched an appeal against her written improvement notice, which was ultimately revoked in July 2021.

However, the grievance procedure concluded there had been no disability discrimination and no failure to implement reasonable adjustments by the officer’s managers - an outcome she appealed against.

In October 2021, that appeal was conducted by Chief Superintendent Richard Robertshaw. The tribunal judgement described a meeting the following month in which he “made comments about the claimant being a challenging individual and difficult to deal with”.

“The Tribunal reviewed the evidence on this aspect carefully and considered that Chief Superintendent Robertshaw had formed a view of the claimant prior to dealing with the matter. He said in evidence that the claimant was ‘well-known’ and that her name would come up in HR meetings.

“As a result, the Tribunal considered that he had pre-formed his views, which were prejudicial of the claimant,” the judgement stated.

The tribunal also said it had “no hesitation” in concluding that the officer who brought the case had suffered detriment as a result of her “protected act(s)”.

It found that the force became focused on the “future possibility” of a tribunal and “operated with it in mind” - embarking on a “damage limitation exercise”.

Chief Superintendent Robertshaw was found to have produced an appeal outcome report that was "inaccurate [and] which attempted to change facts...or to deny what had happened and to steer things against the claimant". It was concluded that both he and the force had "victimised" her.

The three-person tribunal panel, led by Employment Judge Batten, unanimously found the officer’s complaints of “a failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability”, “unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability” and of “victimisation” were all “well founded” and - so succeeded.

Lancashire Police was approached for comment.