IFRAH ALI v London Ambulance Service NHS Trust — 2026

Ms Ali was employed by Hays Specialist Recruitment Limited and worked for London Ambulance Service NHS Trust as an agency Advanced Clinical Practitioner. The Trust conceded that she was disabled by dyslexia. The tribunal dismissed her complaints of direct disability, race and religion discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, indirect disability discrimination, breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments and victimisation.

The tribunal found that Ms Ali's reduction in shifts followed the introduction of Rotamaster in June 2024. The system gave priority to contracted staff, then managed bank staff, and lastly agency staff. Her reduced allocation for September 2024 was decided before she disclosed her dyslexia on 3 July 2024, and other agency workers also received fewer shifts. Her allocation rate from September 2024 to March 2025 was 6.7%, higher than that of the other Hays agency worker used as a comparator. She received no allocated shifts for February 2025 because she had submitted no availability.

The tribunal found that the Trust failed to respond fully to enquiries made in July and November 2024, delayed applying its Reasonable Adjustments Policy, and did not apply its internal Resolution process because Ms Ali was not an employee. It found no facts linking those matters to disability, race or religion. The bank staff relied on as comparators were in materially different circumstances because Rotamaster gave them priority over agency staff. The direct discrimination complaints were therefore dismissed.

Ms Ali's longer processing time and difficulty taking accurate notes during calls arose from her dyslexia. The tribunal nevertheless found that her reduced shifts were caused by Rotamaster, not by those effects of her disability or her performance. Her complaint of discrimination arising from disability was dismissed.

For indirect discrimination, the Trust was bound by its pleaded admission that it applied a provision, criterion or practice requiring clinicians to assess and treat three patients per hour. The tribunal found that Ms Ali had not proved that this put people with dyslexia as a group at the claimed disadvantage of finding time-based targets harder to meet. The material relied on described varied effects of dyslexia and did not support the proposed group-wide inference; the tribunal also declined to take judicial notice of that effect. The indirect discrimination complaint was dismissed.

The tribunal found that the Role Cards policy placed Ms Ali at a substantial disadvantage through the risk of performance management if she missed the target, so the Trust owed a duty to make reasonable adjustments. It met that duty by not holding her to the three-patient target and never subjecting her to performance management, support, intervention or sanction for missing it. Although this was not adequately communicated to her, there was no breach. The complaint was presented in time because, on the facts known to Ms Ali, it was reasonable for time to run from December 2024, when she formed the view that she was being discriminated against.