A Gwent Police officer living with HIV has received £40,000 in compensation after an employment tribunal ruled that he was subjected to discriminatory and demeaning treatment at work, leaving him feeling like a “walking disease”.
The officer, known only as Officer X, was asked intrusive questions about his private life, including whether he was having sex and if he used protection; questions he said had no relevance to his role.
He brought claims of direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, indirect disability discrimination and harassment related to disability before the Cardiff employment tribunal.
He learned of his HIV diagnosis in November 2024 during a phone call. Despite feeling overwhelmed, he informed two colleagues and continued with the training session he had been attending.
Later that day, he met with the force’s occupational health (OH) department. The nurse he saw suggested he take time off and consider limiting certain duties, including driving.
At an NHS appointment soon after, he was told that he did not need to come off frontline duties. A specialist nurse reassured him, provided information about HIV and outlined his treatment plan.
Officer X and his line manager agreed he would carry on with normal duties unless he felt unwell.
A later check showed higher viral load and CD4 results. His NHS clinicians were not concerned, but the OH nurse expressed worry that the numbers were above where they should be.
The tribunal heard that OH nurse Susan Barlow asked him questions such as, “Do you have a partner?” and “If you are having sex, are you using a condom?”
Officer X said he was stunned by the personal nature of the questioning, especially since the OH team knew he was receiving specialist care.
He raised concerns with his Police Federation representative, who told Barlow that he no longer wished to deal with her.
Barlow advised him to submit a referral to OH, stating his HIV could be described as “a condition affecting [his] immune system”. He refused further involvement with OH, saying the interactions had left him feeling “ashamed, disgusted and angry”.
The tribunal heard that Barlow had also posted a query on LinkedIn about whether his duties should be restricted to lower any risk of transmission. Although she was told the risk was low, a suggestion was made that she consult an HIV specialist.
In December 2024, after referring to a Public Health England document on “bleed-back” risks during exposure-prone procedures, Barlow decided to ask that his frontline duties be restricted. She admitted she did not know which risk category applied to the officer’s work.
His line manager visited him at home to tell him about the restriction. He was distressed by the decision.
The following day, he messaged his manager, writing: “At what point am I going to allow someone to drink my blood from the vein or start rubbing an open wound into someone else’s open wound?
“Or have unprotected sex with a member of the public. It’s barbaric what they’ve done. They’ve isolated me and [are] just making me feel like a walking disease.”
Barlow told the tribunal she had not received specific training on supporting staff with HIV. She had completed continuing professional development on blood‑borne viruses but nothing HIV‑specific.
The tribunal found that OH guidance was outdated and that the force had no clear policy for supporting police officers or staff living with HIV.
It concluded that Barlow’s language, including references to ‘moral duty’, reinforced stigma surrounding HIV.
“We find that the decision to restrict the claimant from all front-line duties was made in the absence of proper consideration of the realities of the transmissibility of HIV and the real risk of transmission posed by the claimant’s role,” it said.
Officer X succeeded in his claims for direct disability discrimination and discrimination arising from disability, as the decision to restrict his duties stemmed from his diagnosis.
The tribunal also ruled that the intrusive questions “had the effect of violating [his] dignity and creating a degrading and humiliating environment for him”, upholding his harassment claim.
He was awarded £35,200 for injury to feelings and £5,000 in aggravated damages.
In a statement, Gwent Police said: “In this case, we recognise that we got this wrong and acknowledge the significant impact that this has had on the officer. We are in the process of implementing several learning measures identified as part of this judgment.”
The force added that it is introducing HIV training for all officers and staff, as well as further development for OH practitioners.
This article is based on a piece written for Personnel Today
