Lancashire Constabulary faces payout for treatment of Blackpool officer with PTSD, anxiety and depression

Top cops at Lancashire Police have been criticised for their treatment of a disabled female officer suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression and anxiety.

The woman, who is a victim of domestic violence and named in employment tribunal papers only as L Darby, had her PTSD likened to a broken leg by Superintendent Chris Hardy, one of the force’s most senior officers, documents say.

This, the tribunal ruled, was “completely inappropriate and displayed a lack of insight or understanding of mental health issues”.

And Inspector James Martin, a veteran officer who has worked in both Blackpool and Fleetwood,  asked if she was “going to have a problem with white male supervisors” - a remark he “failed to understand” could be seen as offensive, papers say.

They add: “The tribunal were concerned that the remark included a reference to colour of skin, which was in any event not relevant or necessary; it trivialised (Darby’s) position and her mental health issues and demonstrated an inability to understand (her) experiences or their effect, and instead suggests that Insp Martin viewed (her) as presenting excuses to avoid work.”

The tribunal concluded that Darby was victimised by the force, which was found to have failed to make reasonable adjustments for her mental health conditions.

A three-person panel, led by employment judge Batten, said the officer’s claim for unfavourable treatment was “well-founded” and succeeds.

She now faces a pay out, ultimately funded by the taxpayer, with a remedy hearing to be held in due course.

Lancashire Police declined to comment when approached by The Blackpool Lead.

Employment lawyer Lorraine Mensah, who represented Darby, had not provided a comment by the time of publication.

Darby began working for Lancashire Police as a PC in March 2003, documents show. She took a career break in 2010 and returned in June 2017.

Months later, she was signed off work after what was described as a “domestic violence incident”.

After being off work sick for 15 months, Darby began a phased return, working part-time in HR at Hutton before moving to the crime management unit (CMU) at Morecambe police station, which was near her then-home in North Yorkshire.

A force medical adviser (FMA) made it clear she was unfit to return to frontline or immediate response duties, with a report saying she had “by no means recovered”, though the tribunal said “it was unclear whether the (force) or any of its officers had read this report or took heed of the FMA recommendations”.
During the pandemic, Darby moved to “Lytham St Annes” to live with a relative because her home had flooded and she wanted to provide support to her grandmother during lockdown.

She asked, the tribunal was told, to either work from home or at a police station closer to her new home.

The next month, she was told the CMU was being moved to Blackpool police station.

Darby asked to stay at Morecambe, saying Blackpool “was not an option for her because her ex-partner worked” there and her childcare provision was in Lancaster, papers add.

Supt Hardy wrote in an email to HR: “…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??”

Darby’s managers held an “inclusion meeting” - without her - and came up with four options: for her to assume neighbourhood policing duties at either Morecambe or Blackpool, to take a career break, to quit as an officer and take up a police staff role or leave with an ill-health pension.

The options were described as a “Hobson’s choice” - the illusion of a free pick when there is no real alternative - with Darby later accepting a place on the neighbourhood policing team in Morecambe, four days before she was handed a letter about “unsatisfactory performance and attendance”.

The tribunal asked Sergeant Lindsay Brown, who was awarded for his police work during the pandemic and was Darby’s line manager at Morecambe, where those four choices came from.

He suggested they came “from the organisation”.

The tribunal ruled that Lancashire Police should have allowed Darby to “work closer to her home or adopt a version of agile working including partially working from home rather than effectively requiring the claimant to undertake an 80-mile round trip to and from work”.

Papers say: “The tribunal considered that the (force) was treating (Darby) as an ordinary police officer and without regard for the fact that she is also a disabled person.

“The (force) also had several FMA reports which said that (Darby) should cut down on driving. These were routinely ignored… The tribunal was concerned to hear an argument advanced by the claimant’s managers that facilitating the claimant to transfer divisions would be ‘too difficult’ without explaining the judgement beyond reference to the administrative procedures around a transfer.”

After an FMA report suggested the force should “consider a work location closer to (Darby’s) home due to the fatigue of travelling a long distance to work” and that the Equality Act “was likely to apply to (her) mental health condition”, Darby, who had several spells off work due to ill health, was asked to report for work in Blackpool.
She went on to complain about her treatment, making allegations of bullying, harassment, discrimination and unfair working practices.

Eight days later, she was given a “written improvement notice” (WIN) during what was described by the tribunal’s panel as an “adversarial meeting”.

WINs are issued to officers accused of not performing to an acceptable standard.

“It was foreseeable that this could damage the claimant’s mental health and/or put her one step further along the attendance management process, the end result of which could be dismissal,” documents say.

In January 2021, Darby turned up for work in Blackpool but was told to go and work in Morecambe instead.

On her way there, she had a mental breakdown and was again signed off work sick, the tribunal heard.

It was after this that Insp Martin made his remarks about Darby coping with “white male supervisors”. His account of the conversation “includes mention of him questioning the claimant about what he describes as ‘her true reasons for not attending work’,” tribunal documents say.

They add: “Insp Martin’s comments were insensitive and unjustifiable - his explanation was that it was said in response to (Darby) suggesting that Sgt Brown was a ‘trigger’ for her PTSD. The tribunal considered that Insp Martin did not understand what (Darby) meant by this and viewed (her) as putting obstacles in the way of coming to work.

“He had her attendance in mind and went on to ask her if she would be reporting sick the next day. The tribunal considered his comments to be disproportionate and outwith the aim of ensuring adequate attendance by (Darby).”

Investigating Darby’s grievance, Lancashire Police revoked her WIN but decided it had not discriminated against her or failed to make reasonable adjustments.

She appealed but Chief Superintendent Richard Robertshaw, who is said to have branded Darby a “challenging individual to manage” and is also one of Lancashire’s most powerful police officers, dismissed her challenge.

However, tribunal papers say Ch Supt Robertshaw “had formed a view of (Darby) prior to dealing with the matter”.

They state: “He said in evidence that (Darby) 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 (her).”

The tribunal said Ch Supt Robertshaw “effectively avoided answering questions” during cross-examination.

And he was accused of “producing an appeal outcome report that was inaccurate, which attempted to change facts (see, for example, the WIN which was revoked by Chief Inspector Stubbs but declared by [Ch Supt Robertshaw] to have only been ‘suspended’) or to deny what had happened and to steer things against the claimant”.

Documents add: “It was intended to be, as (Darby) submitted, a damage-limitation exercise and an attempt to deny that any discrimination had taken place.”

Insp Hardy also faced criticism, with the tribunal saying he “often answered questions under cross-examination by using the passive voice and not taking ownership, for example, ‘it would have been done’ and by not including himself in references to those responsible, thereby seeking to distance himself from any errors”.

Ruling that Lancashire Police and Ch Supt Robertshaw had victimised Darby, the tribunal, held in Manchester, said her complaints were well-founded.

Darby took ill-health early retirement from the force in August 2022.

The Lancashire Police Federation was contacted for a comment.

It did not respond.

Studying the case, Redmans Solicitors said on its website that “emails sent between different managers of (Darby) demonstrated their difficulty in understanding her needs, the lack of HR support and the increasing impatience with her condition”.

It added: “Various actions by the (force) were found by the tribunal to constitute discrimination as a consequence of a disability. These included subjecting (Darby) to the unsatisfactory performance and attendance procedure and issuing the WIN, given the state of her mental health.

“The tribunal confirmed that these actions had been taken because of the claimant’s level of sickness absence and underperformance. The sickness absence and underperformance were in consequence of her disability. As such, the (force) had breached section 15 of the Equality Act.”

Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 says: “A person (A) discriminates against a disabled person (B) if A treats B unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of B's disability, and A cannot show that the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.”

That does not apply if “A shows that A did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that B had the disability”.