Met Police Victimisation Claim Amendment Allowed by EAT
The EAT has allowed a former Metropolitan Police officer to amend her employment claim, alleging post-employment victimisation relating to communications about her warrant card.
• public
Former Officer's Victimisation Claim Amendment Upheld Against Met Police
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has overturned a decision preventing a former police constable from amending her claim against the Metropolitan Police Service. The claimant, Ms L Barbosa Dethling, sought to add a complaint of post-dismissal victimisation to her existing discrimination case.
The core issue revolves around emails sent by solicitors representing the Metropolitan Police (Gowling WLG (UK) LLP) to Ms Dethling after her employment ended. These emails concerned the return of her warrant card, with references made to the possibility of filing a theft report if the card was not returned.
Ms Dethling argued that these emails constituted victimisation under the Equality Act 2010, alleging that the threat of a theft report was an intimidation tactic related to her ongoing discrimination claim. The original Employment Tribunal had refused the amendment application, finding that the emails were a reasonable attempt to recover the warrant card and lacked evidence of victimisation.
EAT Ruling: Tribunal Erred in Law
His Honour Judge Auerbach, presiding over the EAT, found that the Employment Tribunal had erred in its assessment. The EAT highlighted that the Tribunal failed to properly consider whether Ms Dethling reasonably perceived the emails as detrimental treatment, focusing instead on its own interpretation of the correspondence and the police's right to recover the warrant card. The EAT stressed the importance of considering the claimant's subjective view and whether that view was reasonably held.
Furthermore, the EAT found that the Tribunal had applied an incorrect approach to the causation issue – whether the emails were sent *because* Ms Dethling had filed a discrimination claim. The Tribunal framed the issue as a binary choice between recovering the warrant card and victimisation, failing to consider whether the discrimination claim materially influenced the police's actions.
Amendment Allowed, Deposit Order Possible
The EAT has allowed the amendment, stating that the claimant has an arguable case on both detrimental treatment and causation. The case will now return to the Employment Tribunal. The Metropolitan Police Service retains the right to apply for a deposit order, arguing that the new complaint has little reasonable prospect of success.
This case highlights the importance of considering the claimant's perspective when assessing detriment in victimisation claims and the need to avoid a binary approach to causation where discrimination may be a material influence.
Read the entire judgement here: Ms L Barbosa Dethling v The Metropolitan Police Service [2025] EAT 58
