This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-28121073

The article has changed 12 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Met Police officer wins race and sex discrimination case Met Police 'deleted discrimination findings'
(about 4 hours later)
The Met Police discriminated against a black, female officer because of her race and sex, an employment tribunal has concluded. The Met Police told staff to delete records on sex and race discrimination against one of its employees, an employment tribunal has found.
Firearms officer Carol Howard, 35, from Purley, in Surrey, was "singled out and targeted" for almost a year, a panel found. Firearms officer Carol Howard, 35, from Surrey, was "singled out and targeted" for nearly a year, a panel ruled.
Ms Howard brought a claim of discrimination at the Central London Employment Tribunal earlier this year. An officer looking at her complaints was asked to delete references in a report to discrimination related to race or sex, it said.
The Met said it was "disappointed" at the tribunal's findings. The Met said it was "disappointed" at the findings but would review the case.
'Victimisation complaints''Victimisation complaints'
A judgment issued by the panel which heard the case, said the Met "directly discriminated" against Ms Howard "on the grounds of sex and race" between 31 January and 29 October 2012. Ms Howard, of Purley, brought a claim of discrimination at the Central London Employment Tribunal earlier this year.
A judgement issued by the panel which heard the case said the Met "directly discriminated" against Ms Howard "on the grounds of sex and race" between 31 January and 29 October 2012.
A number of Ms Howard's complaints of "victimisation" were "well-founded", the tribunal added.A number of Ms Howard's complaints of "victimisation" were "well-founded", the tribunal added.
The 35-year-old worked in the Diplomatic Protection Group (DGP), which provides protection for foreign embassies and missions in London. The force concluded there was no evidence "without having conducted a proper investigation", it added.
It also found that a detective sergeant tasked with looking at Ms Howard's fairness at work (FAW) complaint was asked to delete references to discrimination and harassment relating to sex or race in a report.
The judgement concluded this was done "not because they were not supported by evidence in the report, but because the claimant had brought a complaint of race and sex discrimination in the tribunal".
The tribunal added it was "very concerned by the Met's policy of deleting findings which might mislead staff who'd complained (and tribunals) into believing investigating officers hadn't found any discrimination when in fact, they had".
The 35-year-old worked in the Diplomatic Protection Group (DPG), which provides protection for foreign embassies and missions in London.
Her superior, acting Insp Dave Kelly, subjected her to "a course of conduct which was detrimental to her", the panel said.Her superior, acting Insp Dave Kelly, subjected her to "a course of conduct which was detrimental to her", the panel said.
Within weeks of becoming her line manager Mr Kelly "formed the view...that the claimant was dishonest and not up to the standard required for DPG", but the panel said he had not provided a "credible basis for forming such a view". Within weeks of becoming her line manager Insp Kelly "formed the view... that the claimant was dishonest and not up to the standard required for DPG", but the panel said he had not provided a "credible basis for forming such a view".
Her commitment was challenged in front of colleagues, her "every absence" was assumed not to be genuine and her application for an armed response vehicle role was not supported, the panel found.Her commitment was challenged in front of colleagues, her "every absence" was assumed not to be genuine and her application for an armed response vehicle role was not supported, the panel found.
The panel also criticised the way the force dealt with Ms Howard's complaints after it concluded there was no evidence of discrimination, without conducting a proper investigation.
'Discriminatory treatment''Discriminatory treatment'
Lawyers for Ms Howard will now seek compensation from the Met Police for injury to feelings and aggravated damages.Lawyers for Ms Howard will now seek compensation from the Met Police for injury to feelings and aggravated damages.
Her lawyer Kiran Daurka, from Slater & Gordon, called for an overhaul of the force's equality procedures.Her lawyer Kiran Daurka, from Slater & Gordon, called for an overhaul of the force's equality procedures.
"The conduct of the Metropolitan Police and some of its senior officers towards Carol Howard was deplorable over the last two years," she said."The conduct of the Metropolitan Police and some of its senior officers towards Carol Howard was deplorable over the last two years," she said.
"My client was subjected to discriminatory treatment because she is black and because she is a woman.""My client was subjected to discriminatory treatment because she is black and because she is a woman."
"Fifteen years after the Met was branded 'institutionally racist' they have failed in addressing discrimination which pervades the system.
"This case shows that there needs to be a complete rewrite of the Metropolitan Police's equality procedures and an independent investigation into existing measures purporting to deal with discrimination complaints. That's the only way to protect officers facing similar discrimination in the future."
In a statement, the Met Police said: "We are disappointed at the tribunal's finding in favour of PC Howard.In a statement, the Met Police said: "We are disappointed at the tribunal's finding in favour of PC Howard.
"We will review the findings, take legal advice and take forward any learning or actions as appropriate.""We will review the findings, take legal advice and take forward any learning or actions as appropriate."