Case 4104279/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Dolan v Represented by:10 Mr J Lawson - Solicitor Prestwick Aircraft Management Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 4104279/2024
- Decision date
- 24 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Cowen
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Dolan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe only issue decided was whether Mr C Dolan's dyslexia amounted to a disability for the purposes of s.6 Equality Act 2010 during his employment with Prestwick Aircraft Management Ltd. The respondent accepted the diagnosis of dyslexia but disputed that it met the statutory definition. The tribunal therefore asked whether the impairment had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities.
The tribunal accepted evidence that Mr Dolan had been diagnosed with dyslexia at primary school and had longstanding difficulties with reading, writing, memory, note-taking, telling the time and following directions without visual aids. It relied on a 2019 specialist report as a fair reflection of those difficulties, and accepted that he used coping mechanisms such as reading aloud, talking to himself and relying on his phone for notes, reminders and directions.
Mr Dolan had joined the respondent's trainee aircraft mechanic course in September 2023. The tribunal found that he passed the early exams while coping mechanisms and some assistance remained available, but that after around week 4 the respondent stopped him using his phone and his ability to keep up with the course reduced. The tribunal held that the correct comparison was the effect of the impairment without the coping mechanisms or adjustments, and concluded that the adverse effect was more than minor or trivial and therefore substantial.
The tribunal was also satisfied that the effect was long term because the dyslexia had been present since primary school and continued during the employment period. It found that Mr Dolan was a disabled person within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010, so the disability discrimination claim could proceed. The judgment was confined to the preliminary issue and stated that the findings would not bind any future tribunal dealing with the merits or issues such as the respondent's knowledge.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal held that the claimant was a disabled person within s.6 Equality Act 2010 during his employment. The substantive disability discrimination allegations were not determined in this judgment. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.212(1) Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 para 2(1) Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 para 5 Equality Act 2010
- Statutory Guidance on the definition of Disability (2011)
- Aderemi v London and South Eastern Railway Ltd 2013 ICR 391
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.