A police sergeant who claims he was effectively demoted because his superiors were concerned that he might suffer a heart attack because of the stress of his job, has taken his case to the Human Rights Commission.Ian DeAllie claims that he was transferred from the crime desk of the police intelligence unit to a subordinate position at the Somerset station in June 2006. His lawyer Allan Doughty argued at a hearing yesterday that the move was made after senior officers became aware that Sgt DeAllie was under stress, and that there was a history of heart disease in his family.This, coupled with the fact that the officer was overweight and sweated profusely, prompted commanders to place him in a less stressful job — thereby discriminating against him on the wrongful basis of a “perceived disability”, Mr Doughty argued.“Mr DeAllie’s case is not based on obesity, his case is based on that of physical disability, specifically the stated fear of what the stress levels he was under would mean for his health, given his family history of heart disease,” Mr Doughty said.“We are not claiming that Mr DeAllie had heart disease. We are, however, claiming that the fact that his father had heart disease was held against Mr DeAllie as he was observed to be under stress, sweating profusely, being visibly obese and had a family history of heart disease.”According to Mr DeAllie, the transfer meant that he was effectively demoted to the post of “batman” to then-Superintendent Michael DeSilva, with less responsibility, less chance of promotion and less pay.“There was also a comment that he [Sgt DeAllie] needed to be referred to a nutritionist,” Mr Doughty said.“This, we submit, is the smoking gun. I submit that this in and of itself lays out clear-cut evidence ... that Mr DeAllie was transferred on the basis of the perceived disability of heart disease or the risk that he would develop heart disease.”Mr DeAllie became clinically depressed after the transfer and was eventually discharged from the force after being unable to return to work.In his opening submissions, lawyer Alan Dunch, acting on behalf of the Police Commissioner, claimed that the transfer had nothing to do with Mr DeAllie’s health. Instead, Acting Superintendent Paul Wright had decided on the transfer after Mr DeAllie had said he was only willing to work to rule.The hearing was told how Mr DeAllie was given an assignment on the afternoon of Friday, June 9, 2006, but left the office at 5pm before completing the task. Acting Superintendent Wright made several attempts to contact the officer over the weekend without success and so called him in for a “performance issues meeting” when Mr DeAllie returned to work the following Tuesday.According to Mr Dunch, Mr DeAllie became “combative and confrontational” at that meeting, and said that he was only willing to work to rule, even though crime desk officers are expected to be on call permanently.“Instead of taking it like a man, he fought back in a manner which was unacceptable and insubordinate,” Mr Dunch said.Mr Dunch pointed out that the complainant’s attitude “was unacceptable” to the “unpredictable demands of the crime desk” and as a result, Acting Superintendent Wright decided to have Mr DeAllie transferred to a less stressful job with more regular hours.Ten days later, the hearing was told, Acting Superintendent Wright had an informal conversation with a colleague and friend of Mr DeAllie, who mentioned that the officer was under stress from personal matters. As a result, Acting Superintendent Wright assigned a welfare officer to Mr DeAllie — a decision that the complainant’s lawyer referred to as “the smoking gun”.The hearing continues today.