An employment tribunal has found that a barrister who suffered discrimination while working for the Crown Prosecution Service was not subject to harassment or victimisation.

The CPS had admitted it failed to make reasonable adjustments for Tarique Mohammed, who suffered from a heart condition, but denied further allegations brought by him regarding his treatment. Mohammed's grievances also covered hot-desking disputes, rota issues and comments made by a colleague about side-effects of his medication.

Following a punctuated hearing which began at Reading employment tribunal in December 2019 and ended in July 2021, Employment Judge Hawksworth said ‘significant elements’ of Mohammed’s grievances were upheld but the allegations of harassment and victimisation should be dismissed.

The judge added: ‘Many of the incidents about which the claimant complains were unrelated to his disability or his protected acts, or were caused or aggravated by the claimant over-reacting, being confrontational in approach or being defensive in response to errors by him.’

The tribunal heard that Mohammed had been employed as a senior crown prosecutor since 2004. In 2014 he took sick leave after suffering a heart attack. He required further surgery the following year after collapsing at home.

After this second health scare, the CPS admitted failing to allow the claimant to work from home for two days a week and failing to reduce Mohammed’s workload so as to alleviate his stress. His employer also did not make a reasonable adjustment to enable him to finish his working day at 4pm in order for him to take prescribed medication.

Mohammed made further claims that two colleagues had ‘ganged up’ on him over hot desking, where his water bottles had been cleared away. He also alleged he was bullied and harassed by his manager to travel to Brighton for a work meeting. He said that one colleague had made derogatory comments in the quiet room about his flatulence issues, a side-effect of his medication.

The judge stressed the need to take an overall picture of Mohammed’s complaints, saying he had ‘genuine reason to be aggrieved’ about his treatment but finding nothing that amounted to harassment or victimisation.

An application for an interim payment was rejected, with remedy to be decided at a future hearing.