Vicky Lee Taylor v P3 Charity — 2026

The respondent conceded that Vicky Lee Taylor was disabled by reason of dyslexia. The tribunal found that the respondent first knew of the disability on 4 July 2023, when Taylor disclosed it during a meeting with Wendy Hope. It did not accept that Taylor had disclosed dyslexia to her former manager in February 2023 or that adjustments had then been agreed.

Taylor alleged that on 7 September 2023 Hope said words to the effect of “for fucks sake can’t you spell and there are loads of information missing.” The tribunal preferred Hope’s evidence and found that the comment was not made. It relied in part on inconsistencies concerning the date and wording, the absence of contemporaneous reference to the allegation, and its omission from Taylor’s detailed grievance of 5 November 2023. The claims for discrimination arising from disability under s.15 Equality Act 2010 and harassment related to disability under s.26 therefore failed.

The reasonable-adjustments claim concerned an alleged practice of requiring employees to work from Arbury Lodge and a proposed adjustment permitting Taylor to be based at Hadley Mews. The tribunal found that this provision, criterion or practice was not established or applied to Taylor: she could work from any of three bases. It also found that she had not requested the pleaded adjustment, that the asserted substantial disadvantage was not established, and that the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know of that asserted disadvantage. The claim under ss.20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 therefore failed.

In the alternative, the tribunal found that any duty to make the pleaded adjustment could not have arisen before 18 July 2023, allowing a reasonable period after disclosure of the disability. Taylor contacted ACAS on 5 November 2023 and presented her claim on 7 January 2024. The tribunal found that the reasonable-adjustments complaint was approximately two and a half months out of time, was not part of a continuing act or course of conduct, and that there was no evidence supporting a just and equitable extension. It consequently found that it had no jurisdiction to hear that claim. No monetary remedy was awarded.