The claimant, who suffered from dyslexia, argued that the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments for him.  After initially raising a grievance relating to his disability the respondent sought advice from the Adult Dyslexia Centre in 2009. Recommendations were made as to how adjustments could be made to a promotion process that the claimant was interested in participating in, which included completion of an exam.

The claimant proposed that the respondent should convert all non-downloadable exam preparation into a visual/oral learning format, alter the assessment method to include a role play or interview rather than written exam, or alternatively, that the claimant could miss entirely the exam process.

The claimant subsequently failed to sit the exam as he argued that he had been unable to access study material which was adapted for him. There was no dispute that the respondent was under a duty to make reasonable adjustments. The Tribunal did not accept that the claimant suffered a ‘substantial disadvantage’ as is required and focused on the Dyslexia Report from 2009 that the respondent had requested. The Tribunal held that none of the mentioned adjustments could be considered reasonable and went beyond what was required to level the playing field. The claims were dismissed.

Practical Lessons

The Tribunal was of the opinion that the claimant had failed to use what it termed “usual everyday coping mechanisms” for his difficulties. The respondent responded positively to the claimant’s disability early on by seeking advice from the Adult Dyslexia Centre in 2009. Ultimately, the Centre’s Report proved instructive in the decision as the Tribunal used it to gauge what exactly the claimant required by way of adjustments.

The Tribunal was clearly of the opinion that the claimant had not made the most of what was available to him. However, without the 2009 report the respondent would have faced a much more difficult task here. This must be particularly true as the claimant argued that his condition had worsened since the 2009 report was compiled.

There is always a risk that an employee’s physical/mental condition may have deteriorated in the interim period, a period of 6-7 years here, and thus getting updated reports will provide a more accurate picture of the claimant’s needs.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/592fd30140f0b63e0b00014a/Mr_J_Roads_v_Buckinghamshire_and_Milton_Keynes_Fire_Authority_33035012015.pdf