25th April 2014

Animal Rights in Employment Law

In the recent employment tribunal case of The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Keohane, the facts were that a dog called Nunki Pippin was permanently removed from a police dog handler when she was no longer operational because of her pregnancy. She claimed that this decision was both directly and indirectly discriminatory. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the claims of direct and indirect discrimination. The judgment was handed down on 4 March 2014.

The EAT held that this decision produced an impact on career progression and loss of overtime on the claimant’s return and was therefore a detriment. Even although the motive behind the decision was to ensure that a search dog was kept operational, the EAT held that the claimant’s pregnancy had been a factor in the decision. The detriment did not need to be caused solely or mainly by a discriminatory motive and it was held that it was enough that the pregnancy was a major influence on the decision.

The EAT also noted that the policy of removing dogs without guaranteeing their return to handlers would have a differential impact on one gender as a whole and therefore would be indirectly discriminatory.

Employers should be careful when making decisions which are determined by an employee’s protected characteristic.  If a significant factor in making a decision is because an employee holds a protected characteristic, employers may face a direct discrimination claim by that employee. Similarly employers may face an indirect discrimination claim (or claims) if a policy has a differential impact on employees who hold a specific protected characteristic compared to employees who do not hold such a characteristic.  Such a policy would require to justified in order to avoid a finding of indirect discrimination.

If in doubt, the sensible approach would be to take legal advice at an early stage so as to avoid a potential claim under the Equality Act.

Simon Allison
Partner – Employment Law

The opinions expressed in this site are of the author(s) only and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Blackadders LLP.

Blackadders takes all reasonable steps to ensure that the content of this site is accurate and up to date. The site is not, however, intended as a substitute for seeking legal or other professional advice but rather as an informative guide to the services provided by Blackadders and topical legal developments. Site visitors should always seek advice tailored to their specific situation. Consequently, Blackadders accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage suffered by anyone acting or failing to act on the basis of information contained on this site. Downloading of material contained on this site is at the user’s own risk and all necessary virus checks must first be carried out by the user. Blackadders is not responsible for the material found on any web sites linked to this one and links to this site may only be made with Blackadders prior consent.


Blackadders owns the copyright in this blog and all material contained on it. The material on this site may be downloaded for personal use only and must not be altered. Otherwise, Blackadders’ written consent is required before any material on this site is reproduced, copied or transmitted in any way.

Privacy Statement

Information passed to us via this site is kept confidential and will not be disclosed to third parties except if authorised by you or required by law.

© Blackadders LLP 2022

Members of the Law Society of Scotland.

Blackadders Solicitors is a trading name of Blackadders LLP, a limited liability partnership, registered in Scotland No SO301600 whose registered office is 30 & 34 Reform Street, Dundee, DD1 1RJ. Reference to a ‘partner’ is to a member of Blackadders LLP.

Back to Business Legal News from Blackadders Solicitors