Kelly Grace v Maldon Lodge Care Home — 2019

Kelly Grace brought claims for unlawful deduction from wages and disability discrimination by way of failure to make reasonable adjustments. The respondent conceded that she was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 because of dyslexia, and it also conceded the unlawful deduction from wages claim. The tribunal heard evidence about the respondent's e-learning requirements, the claimant's need for support with reading and multiple-choice questions, and the way in which her shifts were withheld while the disputes continued.

On the first reasonable-adjustments complaint, the tribunal found that the respondent operated a PCP requiring employees to complete annual e-learning within a set period and that a person with dyslexia was substantially disadvantaged by that requirement. It found the claimant was disadvantaged in that way. The tribunal held that the respondent did not notify her clearly at the outset of the deadline, should have given her more than a two-week extension, and should have asked what assistance she needed. It rejected the respondent's repeated assertion that the CQC required strict annual e-learning completion within a fixed period, finding instead that the respondent had flexibility in how it complied with the guidance.

On the second reasonable-adjustments complaint, the tribunal found that the respondent operated a PCP of refusing to let employees return to work until e-learning was complete. It held that a person with dyslexia was at a substantial disadvantage under that PCP and that the claimant was also disadvantaged. The tribunal found that, as an existing employee whose performance had not been in question, it would have been reasonable to allow her to return to work pending completion of the training, on a reasonable and practicable timetable notified from the outset, rather than relying only on removal from the rota and stopping pay. The tribunal noted that other steps, including disciplinary or capability processes, were available to the respondent.

The third reasonable-adjustments complaint concerned a PCP requiring review of policies and procedures before return to work. The tribunal accepted that such a PCP existed and criticised aspects of the respondent's handling, including resistance to sending the documents out and the delay before a workable arrangement was reached. However, it found that the evidence did not establish that this requirement placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage because of dyslexia, so that claim was dismissed. The tribunal listed the case for a later one-day remedy hearing to determine injury to feelings and the precise calculation of loss of earnings; no final compensation figure was fixed in this judgment.