Mr J McNulty v Hyde Housing Association Limited — 2023

This was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Dawson to decide whether Mr J McNulty was disabled by reason of dyslexia while he worked for Hyde Housing Association Limited. The tribunal set out the section 6 Equality Act 2010 definition of disability, noted the section 212(1) meaning of substantial, and referred to Aderemi v London and South Eastern Railway and Goodwin v The Patent Office. The respondent relied on the absence of medical evidence, the diversity form, an occupational health report, and emails said to show the claimant could write at length.

The tribunal accepted the claimant's account that his reading, writing and spelling difficulties had been identified at college and that he had been given support there. It accepted his evidence that he struggled to read long emails and written material, that after the second word things would muddle together, and that he had difficulty with meetings, social interactions, short-term memory, information overload, lists of instructions and using his PDA. It also accepted that his partner would sometimes help him draft emails.

The tribunal was particularly persuaded by contemporaneous material generated during employment, including the email from Sean Smith, the personal improvement plan, and the outcome letter from the disciplinary hearing, each of which referred to the claimant as dyslexic or to the impact of dyslexia on written instructions. It found that he had a mental impairment affecting his ability to read and understand written information, that the effect on day-to-day activities was more than minor or trivial, and that the effect was long term. It therefore held that he was disabled by reason of dyslexia while employed by the respondent. The written record then notes that further directions were contained in a separate Case Management Orders document.