Ms D Holmes v London Borough of Tower Hamlets — 2019

The Claimant was employed by the Respondent until 9 July 2018. After difficulties in her existing role, she accepted a redeployment option that placed her on a 16-week redeployment period. The Tribunal found that this was a binding agreement and that the Claimant's employment ended by mutual consent when the trial role was not confirmed, rather than by dismissal under section 95(1) ERA 1996.

The Tribunal found that the Claimant was not placed at a substantial disadvantage by dyslexia in the trial role. It accepted that the work pace had been gentle, the trial period had been extended from four to eight weeks, and the concerns leading to the unsuccessful trial related to behaviour and interaction with colleagues rather than matters caused by dyslexia. It also found that the proposed adjustments, including further task clarification, a six-month trial, and written confirmation of verbal instructions within 24 hours, were not required as reasonable adjustments.

For the section 15 claim, the Tribunal found that Mr Miah's negative assessment and the failure to confirm the Claimant in the redeployed role were based on his assessment of her performance and interactions, not something arising in consequence of disability. It added that, if the relevant performance matters had partly arisen from dyslexia, the decision would have been a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of having an employee competent to perform the role. The breach of contract claim succeeded because the Claimant was entitled to two months' pay under the agreement referred to in the correspondence.