Mr J McCaffery v British Transport Police PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2023

This was a preliminary hearing on 25 July 2023 before Employment Judge Grundy in Liverpool by CVP. The claimant, Mr J McCaffery, was a trainee British Transport Police officer pursuing disability discrimination arising from disability and reasonable adjustments claims. The issue decided at this hearing was whether he met the definition of disability under s.6 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal heard the claimant, considered the written and oral submissions, and reviewed medical and occupational health material including reports from Dr Rack, Dr Schneider and Dr Cheesman, as well as the claimant trainer PC Mottershead’s email/document 68 and the respondent’s occupational health evidence.

The tribunal held that the claimant had dyslexia and dyscalculia and that those impairments had a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. It accepted evidence of difficulties with processing, segmenting and sequencing information, short-term and working memory, reading and writing tasks, and the need for extra time in assessments. It also accepted the evidence that he struggled with the NICHE system, preparing MG11 statements, interviews, and remembering new processes and procedures, and that he needed repeat instructions, templates, checklists and supervision.

In reaching that conclusion, the tribunal applied the Equality Act guidance on substantial adverse effect and day-to-day activities, and relied on Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as authority that work-related activities such as assessments, reading, comprehension, interviews, preparing written documents and using a computer system can amount to normal day-to-day activities. It treated the claimant’s police training and on-the-job tasks as relevant evidence of how the impairments affected him in practice, and found that the effects were cumulative and more than minor or trivial.

The tribunal rejected the respondent’s submission that the claimant had not shown sufficient concrete examples or that the diagnosis alone was enough. It said the evidence was not confined to one aspect, that the effect was not undermined by the training evidence, and that the unticked box on the claim form was not conclusive. The claimant was therefore found to be disabled within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010, and the case management order was varied to extend the witness statement and readiness deadlines ahead of the final hearing listed for 21 August 2023.