Case 2406539/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Mehzabin Mohmed v Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 2406539/2023
- Decision date
- 27 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms J Williamson, Mr A Gill
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Mehzabin Mohmed
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld the claimant's complaint of harassment related to disability in one respect only. It found that the respondent made a very detailed occupational health referral without seeking the claimant's consent or input and without informing her.
The tribunal rejected the remaining harassment allegations. It also found that the claimant's complaint that the respondent failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments was not well founded.
The respondent was ordered to pay £3,000 for injury to feelings attributable to the successful harassment complaint. Interest at 8% per annum was awarded for the period from 9 January 2023 to 2 May 2025, amounting to £554.96, making the total award £3,554.96.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Succeeded in one respect only: the respondent made a very detailed occupational health referral without seeking the claimant's consent or input, or informing her. The remaining harassment allegations were not well founded. | Upheld | Disability | £3,000 |
| Disability discrimination | This relates to the complaint that the respondent failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments, which the tribunal found not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,555
- across all upheld claims
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.