Under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA), a person has a disability if they have a physical or mental impairment which has a long-term substantial adverse effect on their normal day-to-day activities. The DDA requires employers to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate the needs of disabled employees.
In Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that a policeman who was dyslexic was disabled for the purposes of the DDA. Mr Paterson claimed that his employer had failed to make reasonable adjustments to take account of his dyslexia, particularly with regard to the exams he had to take as part of the police promotion process. The Employment Tribunal (ET) had earlier ruled that he was not disabled within the terms of the DDA because his dyslexia did not have a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out day-to-day activities. The case was remitted back to the ET for determination of the claim on its merits and Mr Paterson has now won his claim.
Earlier this year a dyslexic police recruit succeeded in a claim of harassment and disability discrimination against Essex police. The ET found that he was treated as if he were 'thick and stupid' and no proper adjustments were made to mitigate the effects of his condition. In its view he had no option but to resign after other officers set out to humiliate and intimidate him.
Says Dean Parnell, "Where an employee has a learning difficulty which is covered by the DDA, it is important to make sure that other employees appreciate this. We can advise you on how to go about making reasonable adjustments and how to ensure that an employee does not receive less favourable treatment because of their disability."
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
