Claimant v Churchhouse v PA Housing Ltd — 2023

The hearing was listed only to decide whether Ms V Churchhouse was a disabled person by reason of dyslexia at the time of the events in issue. The tribunal accepted that dyslexia was an impairment and that it was lifelong, but the dispute was whether it had a substantial adverse effect on her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

The tribunal noted that the claimant’s application form, recruitment test responses, and several emails were well structured and largely free of spelling mistakes, and that during her employment she had been able to function effectively with coping strategies such as taking time, asking for help, and having emails checked. Mr Farley’s evidence was that she sought support with computer use and deadlines but completed required work, while Ms Martin’s letter said dyslexia became more of a problem as work became more computerised.

The diagnostic assessment in December 2022 confirmed dyslexia and identified weaknesses in processing information, memory, spelling, writing, and reading comprehension. Even so, the tribunal found that the claimant had not proved a substantial adverse effect at the material time. It held that the main difficulties she described arose when she was barred from her office and no longer had access to a computer or printer during the disciplinary process, rather than from dyslexia itself, and noted that she had never taken medication for dyslexia so there was no medication issue to consider.