The claimant was employed under a three-year contract of apprenticeship and claimed that he had been unlawfully discriminated against by the respondent on grounds of his disability (dyslexia). There existed a ‘tri-partite arrangement’ where “on the job” training was provided by the respondent while the study element was overseen by Belfast Metropolitan College. After a number of missed assignments the claimant was required to repeat his academic year. From the respondent’s point of view this meant that he could not complete his apprenticeship and he was advised that this could result in termination of his employment. The difficulty was that the claimant had never raised the matter of his disability until almost the end of his third academic year when a meeting was held to discuss delays with his assignments. The claimant argued that the respondent had failed to make reasonable adjustments and was “unreceptive” to his declaration of dyslexia. The tribunal stressed that the crux issue was what the respondent knew and when they knew it; holding that it was only when the claimant produced a letter of a medical assessment that the duty to make reasonable adjustments was triggered. The claim was dismissed.

Practical lessons

Fatally for the claimant, the comparators he cited did not stand up to scrutiny. However, for employers the duty to make reasonable adjustments arises when they know of a disability or when they ‘’ought reasonably to have known’’. Perhaps the claimant here was hoping to rely on the argument that the respondent should have had constructive knowledge, but he had spent 2 years in college without any indication of a problem. Interestingly, the first mention of the disability to the respondent was actually around 6 months prior to firm medical evidence. The respondent was not held to have had constructive knowledge despite the fact the tribunal identified that the claimant had asserted he suffered from dyslexia albeit ‘’without any actual proof’’. This case would suggest that an employer in this situation will not have constructive knowledge without firm medical evidence of an employee’s condition.