Employment Law - What Constitutes a Disability?

The legal definition of what amounts to a disability can sometimes be a long way removed from what most of us think it means. Let’s look at a recent Employment Appeal Tribunal decision.

A man joined the Police Force in 1983, he became a Sergeant in 1989, a uniformed Inspector in 1999 and then Chief Inspector in the same year.

In his career he had taken various exams, he had been commended on occasions for writing good and clear reports. In 2001, he was described as an “able communicator – this has resulted in the production of a number of complex and detailed reports ….. He has consistently produced work of high quality.”

He coped with what can only be described as difficult and demanding jobs.

In 2004, he found that he was suffering from minor dyslexia. Subsequently, he applied to become a Superintendent but failed. Medical evidence stated that he should be allowed 25% more exam time than other candidates. However, this had not been given and so he claimed that he had been discriminated against on grounds of disability.

The Employment Tribunal said that he was not disabled because his dyslexia did not have more than a minor or trivial impact on his day-to-day activities.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal decided that he was disabled,. This was because the medical evidence said he needed more time to complete the exam than candidates without dyslexia. This meant he was at a substantial disadvantage and as a result, was disabled.

What does all this mean? Employers have to make “reasonable adjustments” to accommodate disabled workers in the workplace. It will be a mistake to make snap judgements about what constitutes a disability. Old fashioned ideas and prejudices are to be avoided at all costs.

Published 30/07/2007.