Zakir Khan v Crown Prosecution Service Care Quality Commission — 2024

At a public preliminary hearing on 2 to 4 September 2024, Employment Judge Steward considered four disability discrimination claims brought by Zakir Khan against the Crown Prosecution Service and the Care Quality Commission. The claimant relied on generalised anxiety disorder, depression, ADHD and OCPD, and the tribunal proceeded on the basis that he was disabled. The judge allowed an amendment to claim 1308505/2022 so that the respondent was named correctly and the claimant could rely on the particulars sent on 30 October 2022, but then considered all four claims under rule 37 and struck them out as having no reasonable prospect of success.

For claim 1308505/2022, the tribunal found that the paralegal officer application required a written application and an untimed situational judgment test. The claimant passed the SJT, later scored 2/7 on each assessed behaviour in the written application, and the judge rejected his case that the SJT still placed him at a comparative disadvantage or that assessed work experience was a reasonable adjustment. The judge also found that the respondents had no relevant knowledge of the asserted disadvantage from the application form and that the claimant's arguments about grammar, a holistic review and feedback did not show a realistic prospect of success. Claim 1302695/2023 was treated similarly: the claimant did not complete the SJT, had requested an alternative such as work experience, but the tribunal held that he could not show comparative disadvantage because he had already passed the SJT in claim 18, and that the proposed adjustments were not reasonable.

In claim 1302157/2023, relating to the CQC paralegal - Inquiries and Investigations role, the claimant's written application was unsuccessful at shortlisting. The tribunal rejected his case that the written application, video interview or reliance on life experience put him at a comparative disadvantage, and it accepted the respondent's evidence that the application had not met the benchmark requirements and that the claimant had not identified any workable adjustment other than assessed work experience. The judge noted that the claimant had not progressed beyond the first stage and that consultation or a request for medical advice was not itself a reasonable adjustment.

In claim 1303023/2023, concerning entry to the CPS National Legal Trainee Scheme 2023/2024, the tribunal held that the real issue was the requirement to have completed the LPC. It found that the claimant had never attempted the LPC, that the complaint was in reality about a sponsorship or funding scheme, and that the Employment Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to require the CPS to create such a scheme. The judge also held that the claim was defeated by timing because the scheme required the LPC at the start, and the claimant had not shown a reasonable prospect of completing it in time. The hearing considered rule 39 deposit orders and the claimant's means, but the reserved judgment records strike out only and no monetary award.