West Yorkshire Police force is trying to appeal to the House of Lords to overturn a tribunal ruling that it victimised a Bradford sergeant.
The force is seeking leave to put its case before Peers after the Court of Appeal upheld that Sergeant Raham Noor Khan had been subjected to unlawful victimisation.
Police chiefs refused to provide Sergeant Khan, of Grasleigh Avenue, Allerton, Bradford, with a job reference because he was involved in a race discrimination claim against the force.
At last month's appeal judges agreed with the tribunal and upheld an award of £1,500 compensation under the Race Relations Act for injury to his feelings.
Today, West Yorkshire Police confirmed it was seeking leave to appeal to the House of Lords.
But the Police Federation has responded by criticising the force's decision to pursue the matter further. Clint Elliot, general secretary of the Federation's Sergeants' Central Committee, said: "We had hoped that the force would look forward, rather than continually looking back to these matters. We will be watching the appeal application with interest."
Last month's Court of Appeal ruling followed a four-year legal battle. It began in October 1996 when Sergeant Khan applied for a job with Norfolk Police.
At the time, he had already brought a race discrimination case against West Yorkshire Police - alleging his supervisory officers had refused to support his attempts for promotion.
The then Chief Constable, Keith Hellawell, refused to give him a reference on the grounds it may influence the discrimination claim.
A year later Sergeant Khan, 43, successfully brought a claim of racial victimisation against West Yorkshire Police over its failure to provide a reference.
The force failed to overturn the verdict in an Employment Tribunal appeal in 1998. It argues Sergeant Khan was not racially victimised, because any employee who had brought proceedings against the Force would be refused a reference.
Speaking after the Court of Appeal ruling last month Sergeant Khan, said he felt fully vindicated for standing up against what he felt to be an injustice.
Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article