JPP Law Blog
Dyslexic employee wins race and disability discrimination claim
A dyslexic employee has won a disability discrimination claim because her employer failed to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate her condition. Her race discrimination claim which was originally dismissed by the employment tribunal due to lack of evidence is to be reconsidered because they tribunal need 'to be alive to the possibility of unconscious discrimination as well as overt discrimination.'
The employee was from Ghana. She suffered from dyspraxia and dyslexia, which meant it took her longer than others to complete her work. She was granted compressed hours at her request, working four days per week instead of five. The employer also agreed to provide her with specialist equipment.
The employee asserted that the employer should have made the reasonable adjustment of reducing her workload. She also said that the employer had downgraded her performance review because of her race. She relied on an internal document which stated that part-time, disabled or minority staff were statistically less likely to receive a performance bonus than other staff.
The employment tribunal found that the employer had imposed a 'provision, criterion or practice' of requiring the employee to carry out the same volume of work as her colleagues, resulting in her having to work extra hours to finish her work.
It concluded that reducing workload would have amounted to a reasonable adjustment and the employer had breached its duties under the Equality Act 2010. However, it rejected the race discrimination claim, finding that the employee had not provided sufficient proof.
The employer appealed against the disability discrimination decision while the employee appealed against the dismissal of her race discrimination claim.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found in her favour. It held that it was clear that the steps taken by the employer had not removed the disadvantage to which she was put during the relevant period.
Turning to the race discrimination claim, the EAT said tribunals had to be alive to the possibility of unconscious discrimination as well as overt discrimination.
The statistical evidence relied on by the employee could tend to show a discernible pattern of treatment of the employee's racial group from which a tribunal might infer unlawful discrimination.
In those circumstances, it was not open to the tribunal, taking proper account of the evidence before it, to reject the race complaint without considering the issues further. The race claim was therefore remitted to the same tribunal for reconsideration.
Please contact us if you would like more information about the issues raised in this article. To find out more about JPP's employment law services please visit employment law.
JPP Law Blog

- Case Studies and Reviews (9)
- Commercial Law (89)
- Dispute Resolution (27)
- Employment Law (118)
- Intellectual Property (2)
- Start-ups (20)
- Videos (8)
- 2021 February (1)
- 2021 January (1)
- 2020 December (1)
- 2020 November (2)
- 2020 October (2)
- 2020 September (2)
- 2020 August (1)
- 2020 July (3)
- 2020 June (1)
- 2020 May (3)
- 2020 April (1)
- 2020 March (2)
- 2020 February (2)
- 2020 January (2)
- 2019 December (2)
- 2019 October (1)
- 2019 September (5)
- 2019 July (3)
- 2019 June (2)
- 2019 May (2)
- 2019 April (3)
- 2019 March (2)
- 2019 February (2)
- 2019 January (2)
- 2018 December (2)
- 2018 October (4)
- 2018 September (12)
- 2018 February (6)
- 2018 January (7)
- 2017 December (2)
- 2018 July (14)
- 2018 June (2)
- 2018 May (13)
- 2018 April (8)
- 2018 March (11)
- 2017 November (6)
- 2017 October (12)
- 2017 September (14)
- 2017 July (7)
- 2017 June (10)
- 2017 May (6)
- 2017 April (4)
- 2017 March (11)
- 2017 February (6)
- 2017 January (1)
- 2016 December (2)
- 2016 September (4)
- 2016 July (1)