PCSO dismissed for breaching non-molestation order: disability discrimination claim fails
A Police Community Support Officer with PTSD was dismissed for breaching a non-molestation order, but the tribunal found no link between his disability and the misconduct. He was later reinstated on appeal.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #police-community-support-officer
- #ptsd
- #non-molestation-order
- #disciplinary-dismissal
- #reinstatement-on-appeal
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a PCSO from 30 October 2006 and was dismissed on 3 December 2020 for breaching a non-molestation order.
- The claimant was reinstated on 30 June 2021 following an appeal, with the sanction reduced to a final reprimand.
- The respondent conceded that the claimant was disabled due to PTSD at the time of dismissal and had knowledge of the disability.
- The dismissing officer did not consider the claimant's PTSD when deciding to dismiss, as no connection was raised during the disciplinary process.
- The tribunal found no evidence that the dismissal was because of something arising from the claimant's disability.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) with the Metropolitan Police Service.
-
Sickness absence began
Claimant went on sick leave for psychological disorders (stress/anxiety) until 2 December 2016.
-
Non-molestation order made
Romford County Court made a non-molestation order against the claimant on an ex parte basis.
-
First alleged breach of NMO
Claimant attended Property J, which was alleged to be a breach of the non-molestation order.
-
Second alleged incident
Claimant allegedly threatened, intimidated or harassed KQC.
-
Third and fourth alleged incidents
Claimant allegedly acted unreasonably in communication with KQC and was rude/obstructive to officers at Property J.
-
Suspension
Claimant was suspended following instigation of disciplinary proceedings.
-
PTSD diagnosis
Occupational health specialist Dr Pitkanen diagnosed the claimant with 'symptoms of PTSD'.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed by a panel chaired by Gary Taylor for gross misconduct (first allegation) and given a first written warning for the fourth allegation.
-
Reinstatement on appeal
Appeal panel chaired by Commander Gordon commuted dismissal to a final reprimand, reinstating the claimant.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal for breaching a non-molestation order amounted to discrimination arising from disability, i.e., whether the misconduct was caused by his PTSD and whether the employer knew or ought to have known that.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims of disability discrimination.
- The respondent conceded the claimant was disabled due to PTSD and had knowledge of the disability at the time of dismissal.
- However, the dismissing officer did not consider the PTSD because no connection was raised during the disciplinary process.
- The tribunal found no evidence that the dismissal was because of something arising from the disability, and no harassment.
- No compensation was awarded as all claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you have a disability that may affect your behaviour, tell your employer explicitly so they can consider it in disciplinary proceedings.
- Employers should ensure dismissing officers are aware of any known disabilities and consider whether they are linked to the alleged misconduct.
- A successful appeal that reinstates you does not necessarily strengthen a discrimination claim if the original decision was made without knowledge of the disability link.
- Tribunals will look at what the decision-maker actually knew at the time, not what they could have known with further investigation.
A dismissal that was later reversed, but not discriminatory
This case shows how important it is for employees to make the connection between their disability and their conduct clear to their employer. The claimant, a Police Community Support Officer with 14 years' service, was dismissed in December 2020 for breaching a non-molestation order. He had been diagnosed with PTSD in 2017, but during the disciplinary process he did not raise that his condition might have contributed to the alleged breaches. The dismissing officer therefore did not consider it.
On appeal, the claimant was reinstated with a final reprimand instead of dismissal. But when he brought claims for disability discrimination, the tribunal found that the original dismissal was not unlawful. The key point was that the decision-maker did not know — and had no reason to know — that the misconduct was linked to the claimant's PTSD.
What the employer could have done differently
The respondent conceded that the claimant was disabled and that they knew about his PTSD. However, the tribunal accepted that the dismissing officer was not told about any connection between the PTSD and the specific allegations. If the claimant or his representatives had raised this during the disciplinary hearing, the outcome might have been different. Employers should ensure that dismissing officers are fully briefed on an employee's known disabilities and consider whether reasonable adjustments or a different sanction might be appropriate.
Why this result matters
This case is a reminder that simply having a disability is not enough to win a discrimination claim. The employee must show that the employer treated them unfavourably 'because of something arising from' the disability, and that the employer knew or ought to have known about that link. Here, the tribunal found that the claimant's conduct — breaching a court order — was not shown to be a manifestation of his PTSD. The dismissal was based on the misconduct alone, not on his disability.
Similar cases
Paramedic dismissed after 22 years: ill-health dismissal was fair despite disability
A paramedic with 22 years' service lost his unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims after the tribunal found his employer acted reasonably in dismissing him for ill-health when his own psychiatrist said he was permanently incapable of working.
Apprentice dismissed after raising National Minimum Wage concern: claim fails
A trainee project manager who was dismissed after complaining about underpayment of the National Minimum Wage lost his claim for automatic unfair dismissal. The tribunal found the real reason was performance and conduct issues.
Police officer with PTSD dismissed after domestic violence allegation: discrimination claims rejected
A police officer with PTSD who was dismissed after a domestic violence allegation has lost his disability and sex discrimination claims. The tribunal found the misconduct panel's decision was not influenced by his disability.
Traffic engineer dismissed after long-term sickness: capability decision upheld
A traffic engineer with PTSD and chronic pain was fairly dismissed for capability after years of sickness absence and negligible work output, the Watford tribunal has ruled.