Mr T Mohammed v Crown Prosecution Service — 2020

The claimant was employed by the Crown Prosecution Service as a Senior Crown Prosecutor. The respondent admitted a continuing failure from September 2015 to make reasonable adjustments, including home working for two days a week, workload reduction, reduced contractual hours to enable a 4pm finish for prescribed medication, and arrangements enabling some court duties. The respondent also admitted discrimination arising from disability by removing the claimant from court duties on or around 23 February 2016 and by refusing or failing to take appropriate action after occupational health reports. Remedy for the successful admitted complaints was left to a separate remedy hearing.

The tribunal dismissed the disability-related harassment complaints. It considered allegations about water bottles and hot-desking, a conversation about flatulence, requests to travel to Brighton, rota issues, alleged comments about absence, delays in reasonable adjustments, and the handling of the claimant's grievance. Some conduct was found to have occurred and some was unwanted, but the tribunal found variously that the conduct was not related to disability, did not have the required purpose or effect under section 26 Equality Act 2010, or that it was not reasonable for it to have that effect.

The tribunal dismissed the victimisation complaints. It accepted that the claimant did protected acts when he requested reasonable adjustments on 3 November 2015 and 24 November 2015 and when he made his grievance on 8 March 2016. It found that the alleged detriments, including criticism of case reviews, refusal of overtime, ending the meeting on 4 March 2016, grievance delays, requests to travel to Brighton, scrutiny of discontinuance decisions and rota errors, were not because of protected acts. The tribunal found that concerns about the claimant's work were genuine and justified and that rota issues were administrative errors in a complex working environment.

The tribunal also dismissed the claims about the respondent's decision not to pay the claimant's practising certificate fee for 2017/2018 while he was on long-term sick leave. It found that the decision was because of sickness absence related to disability, but was not unfavourable treatment because the claimant was not practising, did not need a practising certificate while on sick leave, and the respondent would pay a pro rata fee once a return date was known. It also found no substantial or particular disadvantage for the reasonable adjustments and indirect discrimination claims, and in any event accepted that avoiding unnecessary expenditure from public funds was a legitimate aim pursued proportionately. The claimant's application for an interim payment and injunction was refused because the tribunal held it had no power to make those orders in these Equality Act claims.