in person. The v Respondent — 2024

The claim form alleged unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. At this preliminary hearing the tribunal did not determine the merits of those claims; it decided the separate section 6 Equality Act issue of whether the claimant was a disabled person by reason of dyslexia during the agreed period of 31 January 2023 to 30 May 2023. The respondent accepted that the claimant had long-term dyslexia, but said its effects were no more than minor or trivial.

The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence and the Lexxic, occupational health, and workplace assessment material that her role as a functional assessor involved normal day-to-day activities for section 6 purposes, including telephone workplace capability assessments and the preparation of written reports. It found that dyslexia affected her ability to carry out those tasks at speed and accurately, with difficulties in processing auditory and visual information, working memory, and executive functioning. The tribunal also relied on the fact that adjustments had already been made, including 25% extra time and a reduced target, yet by January 2023 she was still only completing around two assessments a day.

The tribunal rejected the respondent's case that the difficulties were mainly attributable to the LIMA computer system rather than dyslexia. It accepted that the claimant also had difficulties with texts, administrative tasks, and timing social or holiday arrangements, but found those non-work effects were not, on a standalone basis, more than minor or trivial. Taking the work-related effects and the non-work effects together, the tribunal held that the claimant was a disabled person by reason of dyslexia at all relevant times for the purposes of section 6 Equality Act 2010.