Search our news, events & opinions

On 1 September 2016 Withy King LLP merged with Royds LLP. The trading name for the merged firm is Royds Withy King. All content produced prior to this date will remain in the name of the firms pre-merger.

13 June 2014 0 Comments
Posted in Employment, Opinion

Removal of dog was discriminatory

Author headshot image Posted by , Partner

In a case more interesting for its facts than its principle, Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Keohane is an EAT decision upholding the Employment Tribunal decision regarding a pregnant police dog handler who was found to have suffered pregnancy and maternity discrimination when one of her narcotic dogs was reallocated when she announced she was pregnant and her request to have the dog returned before the end of her maternity leave was rejected. The EAT held that the Tribunal was entitled to find that the decision making process to remove the dog was because of her pregnancy, although the Tribunal was incorrect to find that the risk to her career at a result of the dog’s removal did not amount to a particular disadvantage for the purposes of an indirect sex discrimination claim. The rationale behind this is that her status as a dual narcotics dog handler enhanced her career prospects and enabled her to earn overtime.

This legal update is provided for general information purposes only and should not be applied to specific circumstances without prior consultation with us.

For further details on any of the issues covered in this update please contact Gemma Ospedale, Partner in Employment on 020 7583 2222

Leave a comment

Thank you for choosing to leave a comment. Please keep in mind that comments are moderated and please do not use a spammy keyword or a domain as your name or it will be deleted.





It pays to employ the right employment solicitor

Learn more


T: 020 7842 1496 (DDI)

Search our news, events & opinions