Win in the Employment Tribunal for Disability Discrimination – Tarik Ahmed v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Cole Khan client, police officer Tarik Ahmed, has won a claim of disability discrimination against his employer, Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (‘the Met’) in the London Central Employment Tribunal for failure to make reasonable adjustments and harassment under the Equality Act 2010 (‘the Act’). 

 On 20th May 2024 the Tribunal Panel, Judge Barry Smith sitting with Non-Legal Members Ms Masters and Mr Beyber, unanimously found that the Met had failed to make reasonable adjustments by refusing to allow Mr Ahmed to work from home in consideration of his disability (heart disease) and subjected him to unlawful harassment by pressuring him to return to the office against medical advice.

 This is a significant decision in which the Met have been found to have unlawfully discriminated against and harassed a serving police officer, failing to comply with their lawful duties under the Act. This follows the findings in the Baroness Casey Review Final Report that disability discrimination was the most frequent claim brought against the Met Police (2017-18 and 2021-22) and illustrates there are still lessons to be learned.

 The claim has been listed for a one-day remedy hearing on 12 July 2024 to determine the compensation Mr Ahmed should be awarded.

 Summary of Claim:

 Tarik Ahmed has been a police officer with the Met for over 22 years and suffers from the physical impairment of ischaemic heart disease, having experienced a heart attack whilst a police officer. Stress and anxiety act as triggers for Mr Ahmed’s heart disease and can lead to the exacerbation of his disability.

 Historic racism within the Met formed part of the backdrop to Mr Ahmed’s claim which meant he suffered significant stress and anxiety in traveling to and working in a police office or station.

 Mr Ahmed requested reasonable adjustments to work from home on a full time / permanent basis (subject to reviews) to manage the symptoms of his heart disease and the triggers of his stress and anxiety. The tribunal found that Ahmed’s evidence was “consistent and credible” and was supported by occupational health records and contemporaneous written communications.

 It was also accepted in evidence by the Met that there was no operational reason why Mr Ahmed was required to attend the office and it was found that he had been successfully undertaking this role from home for a number of years.

 Relying upon an unwritten policy, Mr Ahmed’s request to work from home was refused by the Met and Mr Ahmed was pressured to come into the office, against medical advice. It was found that the Met had knowledge of Mr Ahmed’s disability and the effect that stress had on him at all relevant times. The judge found that attending the office at this time carried the risk of Mr Ahmed suffering a heart attack. Despite this, and seemingly as part of a wider push within the Met to encourage staff back into the office, Mr Ahmed was pressured to return to the office. This continuous pressure was ultimately found to have ‘crossed the line’ and created and intimidating environment, amounting to harassment related to his disability.

 This was a win for common sense were a reasonable adjustment to allow Mr Ahmed to WFH meant the difference between life and death. Whilst the first image of a police officer is one patrolling the streets, substantial intelligence work happens behind the scenes. Much of this is necessarily done from offices or home and it was accepted by the Met there was no need for Mr Ahmed to attend the office to carry out his role.

 Findings of the Employment Tribunal:

 The Tribunal delivered an oral judgment on 20 May 2024 that found:

1.    The Respondent had failed to make the reasonable adjustment of implementing a structure whereby the Claimant was allowed to work from home on a permanent basis and where this arrangement was reviewed periodically, such as every 6 months.

2.    The Respondent had subjected the Claimant to harassment related to his disability by requesting and pressuring him to return to the office on 18th May 2023 (following a number of previous requests).

 Quote:

 Tarik Ahmed said:

“I'd like to thank Colin Davidson at Cole Khan and Mukhtiar Singh at Doughty Street Chambers for their expertise and support. I hope this decision brings some much-needed change within the organisation. I also hope that, as a result, no other Officer endures trauma such as I have. Common sense prevailed in the outcome, which proved that it is reasonable to provide a concession for disability and that the organisation is fully able to do so. I am a living example of the Dame Casey Review, with which many within the police and the public are familiar.”

 Mr Ahmed’s solicitor, Colin Davidson, Senior Associate of Cole Khan Solicitors said:

“This is a significant win for the right to work from home for disabled officers and recognition that the police are not beyond the scope of the Equality Act. It sends a strong message that an outright ban on the right to work from home is illegal and will not be tolerated by the courts. I am delighted that after a long fight, and a significant toll on my client’s health, justice has prevailed.” 

 The case has been reported in the press:

Met Police officer wins disability discrimination case at tribunal (personneltoday.com)

Detective barred from WFH wins tribunal case (thetimes.co.uk)