The Metropolitan Police has been accused of deleting employees’ sex and race discrimination records following a firearms officer’s victory at an employment tribunal.
The tribunal found that the Met had discriminated against Carol Howard, one of only two black officers in the diplomatic protection group (DPG), because of her race and sex. She is now seeking compensation from her employer.
It said PC Howard had been victimised, with her line manager forming the impression she was “dishonest and not up to the standard required for DPG” and engaging in behaviour “that was designed to, and which in fact did, undermine, discredit and belittle”.
On one occasion, after submitting a formal fairness at work complaint, he was said to be “shouting at her and waving his hands”, with PC Howard leaving in tears.
The subsequent fairness at work report had references to discrimination removed over concerns it would be used in an employment tribunal, and two other cases were cited where similar material was deleted.
The employment judges said: “The tribunal is very concerned that the respondent’s policy of not allowing fairness at work (FAW) advisers to make assessments of discrimination, and of instructing them to delete them when they do so, might mislead complainants and tribunals into believing that the FAW adviser has not found any discrimination when in fact he or she has done so.”
In PC Howard’s case, the altered version of the report gave the impression FAW adviser Detective Sergeant Fiona Hepworth had not accepted the claims of sex and race discrimination, when in fact the opposite was true.
The draft report said: “I have read through all the material in this case and firmly believe that CH (Carol Howard) has been discriminated against by DK (then-Acting Inspector David Kelly) …”
Head of the FAW unit, David Jones, advised DS Hepworth to remove references to discrimination from the report, saying: “In making these changes I am mindful that Carol has a live ET (employment tribunal) and your report will be disclosable should the matter go to a full hearing.”
During the tribunal, another two cases were cited where the practice was used. One concerned an allegation about whether or not an ageist remark had been made at a meeting.
Mr Jones said of a draft report on the case: “The use of the word discriminatory may cause problems if there are failings in this case which warrant the ET being settled.”
In the second case, where the FAW adviser had written that an action could have been indirect discrimination, Mr Jones had said: “Any reference to discrimination can cause problems for the MPS (Metropolitan Police Service) at a later date if this case evolves into an ET. I suggest that you re-write this section.”
The judges said: “The two incidents reinforce our view that the respondent’s guidance and policy about FAW advisers not making any findings of discrimination is related to the difficulties that that might cause to the MPS when defending allegations of discrimination in the employment tribunals.”
Her lawyer Kiran Daurka told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that deleting sex and race discrimination records was Met policy.
She said: “We anticipate that wherever there’s findings of discrimination, they’re being instructed to delete them. They’ve admitted that they do this practice… so that there are no findings of discrimination against them.”
The Metropolitan Police said in a statement it was reviewing its FAW policy, adding: “Whilst it has never been part of the policy to delete discrimination allegations from FAW documentation, we recognise that the practice of not considering them as an integral part of the process has caused concern and this will form a key part of the policy review.
“Where discrimination is alleged as part of a FAW complaint, it is properly considered, but as part of other established processes such as the misconduct process, rather than within the FAW process.
“The MPS adopted this practice due to previous legal advice and not through any wish to hide or shy away from such issues.
“What is clear is that the MPS has not deleted or destroyed documents or evidence as has been implied. Through the legal process of disclosure the MPS provided the earlier drafts of the fairness at work documentation to the tribunal.”