A senior lawyer who unsuccessfully sued his employer for harassment after a colleague told him to stop breaking has won £135,000 in compensation for a range of other claims.
Tarique Mohammed, who worked in the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), successfully argued that he was treated unfairly by not being allowed to work from home two days a week or leave at 4pm to help manage his heart condition.
Mr Mohammed had brought a series of disability claims against the CPS, claiming that bosses and colleagues harassed and bullied him while treating him unfairly after he suffered a heart attack in 2014.
An employment tribunal ultimately ruled that the CPS was guilty of discrimination on the basis of disability and failure to make reasonable accommodations for the plaintiff’s state of health.
However, several other complaints were dismissed, including that of harassment, leveled against a colleague who asked Mr Mohammed to stop farting in the small office they shared.
Pictured: The Crown Prosecution Service office in Millmead, Guildford
Tarique Mohammed said he couldn’t cure his flatulence because it was caused by medicines he was taking for a heart condition, an employment tribunal in Reading has heard. In the photo: Hearing Center of the Reading Tribunal
Mr Mohammed told an earlier hearing that he couldn’t help his flatulence because it was caused by medicines he took after his heart attack.
Asking him to stop farting was not only embarrassing, it violated his dignity, the prosecutor argued.
However, the tribunal thought it was a reasonable request for his colleague to make – given the small size of the office they shared and the repetitive nature of the flatulence.
He also accused his colleagues and bosses of discriminating against him by deliberately throwing away his water bottles when he left them on a shared desk, asking him to work 100 miles away one day a week, and not paying for his practice certificate while he was at work. was on sick leave.
These claims – along with the complaint of flatulence – were rejected by the tribunal.
However, the lawyer has now been awarded £135,862 for the other successful claims against the CPS.
The CPS acknowledged it had treated him unfairly by not allowing him to work from home two days a week, leaving work at 4 p.m. to help him manage his condition, and by relieving him of court duties.
At the hearing in Reading, Berkshire, it was said that married Mr Mohammed began working in the Thames Valley area in 2004 as a senior prosecutor.
In 2014, he suffered a heart attack that required him to take medication every day, the side effects of which meant he had to stay home for several hours after taking it.
The panel was told Mr Mohammed returned to work the following year, but after collapsing at home with angina, he moved to an office – rather than a court – in Guildford, Surrey.
The tribunal heard he lodged a complaint shortly afterwards – in July 2015 – after senior prosecutor Nick Wilson disposed of up to five of Mr Mohammed’s used water bottles he had left on a shared desk.
Mr Wilson said he thought they were nonsense, but Mr Mohammed claimed he had to drink a lot because of his illness and accused colleagues of ‘conspiring’ him.
The following year, the panel learned that he had begun sharing a small office with another district attorney, Paul McGorry.
‘After two or three days of [Mr Mohammed] while working in the room, Mr. McGorry noticed [he] had flatulence,” the tribunal was told. ‘He didn’t know why.
Mr. McGorry knew that the plaintiff had suffered a heart attack, but he did not know what medication the plaintiff was taking or if flatulence was a side effect of the medication.
“There were repeated incidents of flatulence in the quiet room. Once Mr. McGorry asked, “Do you have to do that Tarique?”
‘[Mr Mohammed] said it was because of his medication. Mr. McGorry asked if he could go out and do it. [Mr Mohammed] said he couldn’t.
The CPS acknowledged it had treated him unfairly by not allowing him to work from home two days a week, stopping work at 4 p.m. to help him manage his condition, and by releasing him from court duties.
That’s where the conversation ended. Neither Mr. McGorry nor Mr. Mohammed mentioned the matter again.
“Mr. Mohammed found the short conversation embarrassing, but was not clearly upset and did not complain about the incident.”
The tribunal heard that Mr Mohammed was allowed to return to work at the court in the autumn of 2015.
At the same time, he asked bosses for permission to work from home two days a week and be finished by 4 p.m. on court days, a request rejected by boss Anne Phillips.
In February 2016, he was transferred to another team, so he did not have to come to court. However, he was asked to work one day a week in Brighton, East Sussex – over an hour’s drive from Guildford.
In March 2016 – following her decision to reject his request – he filed a complaint against Ms Phillips and other colleagues. The court heard that he went on sick leave the following month.
The complaint was finally closed in January 2018 and concluded that the CPS should have paid the allowances requested by Mr Mohammed.
He returned to work in September 2018, but his employment was terminated in April 2020.
The tribunal rejected Mr Mohammed’s claims of disability-related harassment and victimization.
Labor Judge Emma Hawksworth said, “Many of the incidents (he) complains about had nothing to do with his disability… or were caused or aggravated by (he) overreacting.”
On the flatulence incident, Judge Hawksworth added: ‘Mr McGorry’s questions to Mr Mohammed were not asked with the aim of violating his dignity or creating such an environment.
“It wasn’t an unreasonable question to ask when there had been repeated instances of flatulence in a small office.
“There was no indication in the way the questions were asked to suggest that Mr. McGorry knew that Mr. Mohammed’s flatulence was related to a disability.”
The tribunal found the CPS guilty of disability discrimination and failed to make reasonable accommodations for denying his requests, ignoring recommendations from occupational health advisers and relieving him of judicial duties.
At the final hearing to determine his compensation, Mr Mohammed was heard to have felt ‘unsupported and vulnerable, angry and upset’.
Mr Mohammed urged the tribunal to recommend that the CPS ‘take steps to prohibit the spread of gossip and rumors about him’, but the tribunal refused.