Veitch Penny LLP - Exeter | Crediton, Devon

Case

Paterson v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
Employment Appeal Tribunal – 23 July 2007

Issues

(1) Disability Discrimination Act 1995
(2) Definition of disability
(3) Day to day activities

Facts

Mr Paterson was employed as a police officer in 1983. During the course of his career he was promoted and by 1999 he had reached the rank of chief inspector. In 2004, he discovered that he was dyslexic. He subsequently alleged that he was disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

He made a claim of disability discrimination arguing that his employer had failed to make reasonable adjustments for him, particularly when undertaking a promotion assessment. In order to succeed with his claim he needed to show that his condition fell within the statutory definition of disability. He would need to show that he had a physical or mental impairment which had a substantial effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. He said he had been discriminated against because of his disability and that his employer had failed to make reasonable adjustments for him in the assessment as they were required to do, as Mr Paterson needed 25% extra time to order complete the assessment. The employer acknowledged that some adjustments had been made but Mr Paterson argued that they were insufficient.

The Tribunal accepted that he suffered from dyslexia but argued that his condition did not impair his ability to undertake day-to-day activities. The employer had argued that the promotion assessments were not to be considered a day to day activity because they were infrequent in nature. Whilst the Tribunal found that Mr Paterson was at a substantial disadvantage compared to his colleagues, it found that this disadvantage did not render him disabled and could simply be compensated for by good industrial practice.

The matter was referred to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). Mr Paterson contended that he was at a disadvantage in comparison with his colleagues because of his disability in the completion of the assessments and that these assessments were a prerequisite of being promoted.

Decision

The appeal was allowed. The EAT said that where an individual suffers a substantive disadvantage because of the effects of a disability, then the effects must involve a substantial effect on the employee’s ability to carry out normal day to day activities. Mr Paterson had argued that whilst the exam or assessments may be irregular in themselves, they could be found to be a usual everyday activity, because he suffered from a deficit in reading and comprehension, which in itself was a everyday activity. The EAT subsequently found that he was disabled and the matter was referred to a Tribunal to decide the claim on its merits. It was confirmed that promotion assessments were normal day-to-day activities for the purposes of defining disability.

Comments

This case confirms that dyslexia can constitute a disability for the purpose of the Disability Discrimination Act if it has a substantial long-term adverse effect on an employee’s ability to carry out normal day to day activities. In view of this case employers should ensure they make reasonable adjustments for affected employees ensuring that no such disabled staff are put at a disadvantage.

Rachel Billen – Associate Solicitor, Commercial Department at Veitch Penny.
Tel: 01392 278381, Fax: 01392 410247, Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

This Employment Law Update does not constitute legal or other professional advice and should not be relied on as such. You should take specific advice regarding your circumstances before taking any action based on the information contained within this Update.