Dyslexia, Exams and Discrimination

Last year we successfully helped a member with dyslexia keep her job, securing reasonable adjustments for her under the Disability Discrimination Act. Now a recent legal case has confirmed that dyslexia can be a recognised disability.

Mr Paterson was a police officer who had achieved the rank of chief inspector in 1999, but it was not until 2004 that he was diagnosed with Dyslexia. He claimed discrimination under the Act, arguing that the police failed to make reasonable adjustments in the examination processes for deciding if he should be promoted to superintendent.

The original tribunal accepted he was disadvantaged during the exams, but said he was not disabled within the meaning of the Act because  the effects on what the Tribunal took to be his normal day-to-day activities were were in fact only minor; and that seeking promotion was not a normal day-to-day activity. Furthermore, although Mr Paterson was disadvantaged when compared to his non-dyslexic colleagues, he was not disadvantaged with reference to the “ordinary average norm of the population as a whole.”

The Employment Appeals Tribunal disagreed. In overturning the Tribunal’s decision, they said that by finding  Mr. Paterson to be disadvantaged in the promotion process, the tribunal should have found him to be disabled. Once it was accepted that the disability affected Mr Paterson’s ability to progress in his profession, the only reasonable inference was that it had a substantial effect on his day to day activities. Any other conclusion would mean that because of the effects of his dyslexia, he would in practice face a glass ceiling; and he would not be able to compete adequately in the promotion stakes beyond a certain level.

In reaching their decision, the EAT said, “The purpose of the legislation, at least in part, is to assist those who are disabled to overcome the disadvantages which stem from a physical or mental impairment. The approach adopted by the Tribunal does not achieve that. Take the case of someone who has all the skills to be a highly successful accountant, but lacks manual dexterity. This may require that he or she should be given longer to do the relevant examinations. It would surely be no answer and would be wholly inconsistent with the purposes of the legislation, simply to say that that individual was not disadvantaged when compared with the population at large and therefore no obligation to make the adjustment arose.”

This case, Paterson v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis, is likely to have implications for other sufferers of dyslexia. It will also be of significance to others with a disability who might be taking exams, seeking promotion or applying for a job, and who, in the absence of reasonable adjustments, might be put at at a disadvantage compared to other candidates.