Over-optimistic expectations

Case 6: The facts

Mr Steel, a police officer, was told that he would be moved to a different location. He complained that this would make it more difficult for him to carry out his family obligations as a lone parent. He lodged a sex discrimination claim on the grounds that he had been treated less favourably than a female officer, whose family responsibilities would have been accommodated.

The ruling

The EAT found that Steel had not been treated less favourably than a woman would have been in the same circumstances. However, it accepted that the loss of a benefit that was hoped for (in this case, preferential treatment) could be a detriment, even if the hope was over-optimistic.

Steel v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police EAT/793/03