Mr L Umpleby v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Police: 1402183/2024
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 1402183/2024
Between
Mr L UmplebyClaimantChief Constable of Avon and Somerset PoliceRespondent
Before
Employment Judge Gray-JonesIn person for claimantMr M Ley-Morgan (instructed by Counsel) for respondentDate 20 February 2026
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant was a disabled person by reason of dyslexia under s.6 Equality Act 2010 at all times material to the claim.[2]The Claimant was a disabled person by reason of depression under s.6 Equality Act 2010 from January 2024.
REASONS
[1]By a claim form presented on 06 September 2024 the Claimant brought complaints of disability discrimination and detriment on the grounds of public interest disclosure. The Claimant is employed by the Respondent as a police dog handler. He commenced employment with the Respondent on 31 October 2022. Apart from a brief break he has worked as a serving police officer, holding the rank of constable, for the last 18 years.[2]This was a public Preliminary Hearing to consider and determine the following issues:[1]Whether at all material times the Claimant was disabled by reason or dyslexia and/or depression, within the meaning of s.6 and Schedule 1 of the Equality Act 2010; Any further case management. Procedural History[3]There was a preliminary hearing for case management on 18 June 2025 at which the case was listed for a final hearing from 18 – 29 May 2026 (the length of hearing having been subsequently extended). At the preliminary hearing the Respondent confirmed that it did not accept that the Claimant was a disabled person under the Equality Act 2010 by reason of dyslexia or depression, these being the alleged disabilities relied on by the Claimant. This position was subsequently confirmed in an Amended Response.[4]There was a further preliminary hearing for case management on 14 October 2025 at which the hearing to determine disability was listed with directions.[5]The Claimant had submitted a supplementary witness statement setting out what was said to be evidence relating to a suspected diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. However, there was no application to amend the claim to include this condition as a disability and so the Tribunal only considered whether the conditions relied on in the claim, namely dyslexia and depression, were disabilities under the Equality Act 2010.
The Evidence
[6]Where a fact is disputed all findings have been made on the basis of the balance of probabilities.[7]The Tribunal was provided with a disability impact statement from the Claimant and medical reports. There was a preliminary hearing bundle and a supplementary bundle from the Claimant. This contained redacted medical records for the Claimant.[8]The Claimant also submitted a supplementary statement dealing with what he said was a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. As stated above the Tribunal did not consider that the Claimant could rely on this condition as a disability.[9]The Claimant gave evidence under oath and was cross-examined.[10]The medical reports provided were as follows: 1) A diagnostic assessment report from Michael Beswetherick, a Chartered Psychologist (Education and Occupational) dated 14 November 2008 on the Claimant’s dyslexia. 2) A letter from the Claimant’s GP dated 07 May 2024 stating that the Claimant had been diagnosed with anxiety and depression and that he was taking medication (Sertraline 50mg once daily) to treat this. 3) A report from the Respondent’s Occupational Health service recording a consultation on 27 August 2024. 4) A document described as a Therapeutic Report on the Claimant dated 10 October 2025 rom Gary Campbell, who is described in the document as a Certified Brainspotting Practitioner and a Specialist in Neurodivergent Trauma. 5) A report on the Claimant dated 10 October 2025 from Maria Canning, Chair of the Police National Dyslexia Association. 6) An autism diagnostic assessment on the Claimant dated 21 November 2025 conducted by Jon Condon, Service Director and Dr Duncan Harris, Clinical Psychologist[11]The Tribunal found the report from Michael Beswetherik to be an authoritative assessment of the Claimant’s dyslexia and the effects of that condition on the Claimant’s functioning. The report was from a psychologist and was clear and detailed in relation to both how the assessment was carried out and its conclusions.[12]As far as the report from Maria Canning is concerned, the Tribunal noted Ms Canning’s lack of clinical qualifications. Furthermore, the report stated at it’s conclusion, “This report has been prepared by the Police National Dyslexia Association (PNDA) to support understanding of Dyslexia and its impact within a policing and workplace context. The PNDA is not acting as an expert witness, and this document should not be regarded as a diagnostic report or an expert witness statement.” As such the Tribunal gave little weight to the report, although noted that it did not appear to contradict anything in Michael Beswetherik’s report or the Claimant’s evidence.[13]The Tribunal took the same view of the report from Gary Campbell. His clinical qualifications were not apparent from the report and the Tribunal was not familiar with the specialism of “Brainspotting”. The Tribunal also noted that at the conclusion of the report it states, “I understand my overriding duty is to assist the individual and, if shared, to assist any reviewing body with impartial clinical information. This report is within my professional competence and based on the information available at the time of writing…This is a functional assessment for Equality Act purposes, not a diagnostic determination.” The Tribunal did not consider that the report could be considered expert evidence and gave it little weight, though again noted that nothing in it appeared to contradict anything in Michael Beswetherwick’s report or the Claimant’s evidence.[14]The Tribunal did not give any weight to the report from Mr Condon and Dr Harris as the Tribunal was not considering whether the Claimant was disabled by reason of ASD.[15]The Tribunal considered that the Claimant was an honest witness, who was doing his best to provide the Tribunal with an accurate account of events. His evidence was consistent with the documentary evidence and where it was not the Claimant provided a credible explanation. The Claimant accepted matters which were not helpful to his case, such as the fact that he did not require reasonable adjustments for his dyslexia whilst carrying out dog-handling duties.[16]The Tribunal noted that the Claimant’s written evidence, which was prepared by him as a litigant in person, included a significant amount of material which was not relevant to the issue being dealt with at the preliminary hearing, including the Respondent’s alleged knowledge of disability and incidents earlier in his career which were not part of the events which formed the background to the claim. As such the Tribunal was careful to assess the Claimant’s evidence only on the basis of the material in it which was relevant to the issue of disability.[17]The Tribunal considered that the Claimant’s medical records and the occupational health material were likely to be an accurate record of the Claimant’s dealings with his treating practitioners and the Respondent’s occupational health service. Facts - Dyslexia[18]On 14 November 2008 the Claimant attended a consultation with Michael Beswetherwick, a Chartered Psychologist for the purposes of Mr Beswetherwick conducting a dyslexia assessment of the Claimant. The assessment had been requested by the Claimant via the Occupational Health Department of the Claimant’s then employer, Thames Valley Police. The Claimant’s evidence was that the consultation had been arranged because his line management were concerned about his performance at work and in particular this ability to deal accurately and efficiently with documents. The Tribunal accepts this evidence on the circumstances in which the report was produced, which are also confirmed in the report.[19]The report states, “Assessment of literacy levels indicated that Lee’s word recognition skills are good average. His comprehension level and rate of free writing were above average and appropriate to his ability. However, though average, fewer than 5% of peers of similar intellect would score as low or lower than he did in the spelling test. His rate of writing was below average.”[20]In the section dealing with Underlying Ability and Cognitive Processing the report states, “Assessment of literacy levels indicated that, though demonstrating average spelling level, fewer than 2% of peers of similar intellect would score as low or lower than he did today.”[21]In the section dealing with Conclusions, the report states, “Lee is a friendly officer of superior overall intellect, who processes verbal and visual information much slower than average. His spelling skills are average but well below the level expected of someone of his ability.”[22]In Recommended Support the report states, “Lee’s difficulties will be most evident in situations where the quick assimilation and/or the recording of written information are important. Hence, it is recommended that:• These difficulties are communicated to Lee’s senior officers• When taking examinations later in his career, he is granted additional time to read the questions. If more than multiple-choice answers are required, he will also need additional time to complete and check his answers.”[23]In his evidence the Claimant stated that reading and writing was a problem for him because of his dyslexia. He needed extra time to read written documents and to digest the information in them. He said that he had used software packages to assist him at work when employed by the Respondent and other police forces, including Dragon and Claro.[24]The Claimant confirmed that he had not sat any exams relating to his employment since the dyslexia assessment and so the need for reasonable adjustments when sitting exams had not arisen.[25]He said that he had not required reasonable adjustments when working as a dog handler as the amount of paperwork that he had to deal with in that role was limited and of a generic nature. As such he was able to manage it using his own coping mechanisms and with help from other people.[26]The Claimant said that the need for reasonable adjustments arose when he was suspended from his dog handler role in 2023 and assigned to carry out administrative duties from home. This involved more significantly more paperwork and large amounts of writing, including emails, reports and responses, and his dyslexia caused him difficulties in dealing with this. He said he had no problem reacting quickly and appropriately when responding to immediate events in his role as a dog handler. However, throughout the whole of his career he had struggled with paperwork.[27]The Claimant was asked in cross-examination about an email from his trade union representative relating to the professional standards investigation which was part of the events leading to the claim. His Police Federation representative, Mark Loker, emailed the investigator, Jacob Bullus, on 23 September 2023 stating, in relation to the Claimant, “I’ve just spoken to him and he’s fine, no reasonable adjustments necessary.”[28]The Claimant said he had not been copied into that email and had not seen it till it was disclosed in the Tribunal proceedings. He said he had not been asked about reasonable adjustments by Mark Loker and that his understanding was that he was being asked whether he was happy to be questioned by Jacob Bullus, which he was. He had not expected to have to provide written responses. If this had been made clear to him then he would have said that he wanted an interview by way of a reasonable adjustment. The Tribunal accepts this explanation.[29]The Tribunal finds that the dyslexia assessment report confirmed that the Claimant has dyslexia and also shows that this means that the Claimant has difficulty recording and assimilating written information and performs tasks involving this at a slower rate than a person without dyslexia. This is also demonstrated by the Claimant’s own evidence.[30]This difficulty in recording and assimilating written information affects the Claimant at work when he has to carry out tasks involving documentation, and he utilises electronic dictation packages and other assistive technology to assist him in carrying out this work, as well as allocating additional time to carry it out. It also affects him in his personal life, in that he finds dense written text in material like newspapers difficult, and so relies on news videos instead. Facts - Depression[31]The Claimant’s medical records show that on 10 May 2016 he was recorded as being, “tearful at times – low mood – anxious”. The record indicates that these symptoms appear to relate to events in the Claimant’s then employment, in particular the Claimant losing his post at Filton and being transferred to a new post at Reading. The Claimant accepted that there was nothing in his medical records prior to this entry which referred to a mental health issue.[32]There are then further entries. On 23 May 2016 the records state that the Claimant had anxiety with depression and was signed off as unfit for work and was started on antidepressant medication. On 06 June 2016 there is an entry stating that the Claimant had anxiety and depression and was signed off work until 04 July 2016. The Claimant continued to be prescribed medication: sertraline 50mg.[33]The records then record the Claimant as having anxiety and depression and being signed off as unfit for work from July until 05 October 2016, with the Claimant being signed off as unfit for work until 03 November 2016. The Claimant confirmed that his sicknote expired on that date and was not renewed. He said that he left his employment in the police service at that point and worked for a taxi company for a period.[34]On 17 April 2020 the records confirm that the Claimant’s firearm certificate (a shotgun license) was renewed.[35]The Claimant’s evidence was that he had a severe period of anxiety and depression in 2016 linked to events at work. He said that he had had depression before this time but has always managed it himself with help from his family and coping mechanisms. He said that in 2016 his depression became unmanageable and at that point he needed to seek medical help. He said that in 2020 there were no mental health issues which prevented the renewal of his shotgun license.[36]There is no further reference to mental health issues until 26 June 2023, where the following information is recorded (presumably recording directly a statement provided by the Claimant): “I am a Police Officer and am being investigated for Gross Misconduct, I am innocent but have to go through this process to prove my innocence. This is causing a huge amount of stress and anxiety about returning to work. I feel I need some time off to cope with the situation. I need the note to run from the 19th of June for a duration of 28 days. Copied from Klinik Access iGPR Report Page 22 of 353 PA”[37]The Claimant remained on sickness absence. The reason for this is recorded on 13 December 2023 as being a shoulder injury.[38]On 29 December 2023 there is a reference to the Claimant having depression and being under a lot of stress at work.[39]On 02 January 2024 the Claimant is recorded as having anxiety and depression and to be commencing sertraline again, having taken it in the past (this must be a reference to the prescription in 2016).[40]The Claimant continued to take sertraline from this date.[41]On 07 May 2024 the Claimant’s GP provided a short letter confirming that the Claimant had been diagnosed with anxiety and depression and has been taking Sertraline (50mg daily) to treat this.[42]On 27 June 2024 an occupational health report on the Claimant described the Claimant has having “reactive depression and anxiety” and as having been on medication for this for the last four months. The report stated, “This has been of some help but until the underlying issue is completely resolved, it is unlikely that he will return to his normal state of health.”[43]On 25 July 2024 the GP records state that the Claimant had “ongoing low mood” and the Sertraline dosage was increased to 100mg.[44]The dosage was subsequently increased to 150mg in January 2025, although this was after the date the claim was presented.[45]The Claimant said in his written evidence that as a result of his depression he experienced feelings of suppressed panic and exhaustion. He said his depression affected his energy and concentration and exacerbated the difficulties he experienced dealing with written documents and his ability to cope with stress. The Tribunal accepted this evidence.
The Law
[46]Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 provides (so far as relevant) that: (1) A person (P) has a disability if – (a) P has a physical or mental impairment, and (b) the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on P’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.[47]Schedule 1 to the Act provides at paragraph 2 that “The effect of an impairment is long-term if –(a) it has lasted for at least 12 months(b) it is likely to last for at least 12 months, or(c) it is likely to last for the rest of the life of the person affected.” Paragraph 2 goes on to say that “If an impairment ceases to have a substantial adverse effect on a person’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities it is to be treated as continuing to have that effect if that effect is likely to recur.”[48]It is for the Claimant to prove that the impairment in question has a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities or to prove that the impairment would have had such an effect but for the fact that measures were being taken to treat or correct it: Kapadia v London Borough of Lambeth [2000] IRLR 699.[49]In Goodwin v The Patent Office [1999] ICR 302 the EAT held that when determining disability ETs should answer the following questions: 1) Does the Claimant have a physical or mental impairment? 2) Does the impairment affect the Claimant’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities and is that effect adverse? 3) Is the adverse effect on ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities substantial? 4) Is the adverse effect long term (was there a real possibility that it would last for 12 months or more)?[50]This approach was recently approved by the Court of Appeal in by the Court of Appeal in Sullivan v Bury Street Capital Limited [2021] EWCA Civ 1694.[51]The focus should be on the things the person could not do, or could only do with difficulty, rather than on what they could do.[52]“Substantial” means “more than minor or trivial”: s.212 EqA 2010.[53]It is important to consider the effect of the impairment rather than its cause: Paragraph A7 of Guidance on Matters to be Taken into Account in Determining Questions Relating to the Definition of Disability (2011) (“the Guidance”).[54]When determining the effect of medical treatment or corrective measures on an impairment the test is to consider what the effect of the impairment would be if medical treatment or corrective measures ceased. Whether it is likely that the impairment would have a substantial adverse effect in these circumstances means that it “could well happen”: SCA Packaging v Boyle [2008] ICR 1056.[55]Boyle also makes clear that the same test applies when assessing whether the effects of an impairment are long term ie. whether the effects have lasted for 12 months or are likely to last for 12 months or to recur. The question of whether the effects are long-term has to be assessed at the time of the alleged discriminatory treatment: McDougall v Richmond Adult Community College [2008] ICR 431.[56]Para 5A of Schedule 1 of the Equality Act provides at subsection (2) that, “References in the relevant provisions to a person’s ability to carry out normal day to day activities are to be taken as including references to a person’s ability to participate fully and effectively in working life on an equal basis with other workers.” The Guidance also states, at para D3, that normal day to day activities can include general work activities.[57]The Tribunal also considered a recent decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd [2025] IRLR 738. This case involved a claimant who was relying on Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) as disabilities. The EAT held that where an ET had before it evidence containing a clinical diagnoses of ASD or ADHD then, unless there was reason to doubt the reliability of the clinical judgment, that diagnoses should be taken into account not only in relation to the question of impairment but also in relation to “substantial adverse effect”, as the clinician had judged the claimant’s difficulties in relation to matters like social interaction and communication sufficiently significant to merit a diagnosis of autism.[58]The Tribunal considered the approach set out in Stedman to be of assistance when considering whether another neurodiverse condition, in this case dyslexia, was a disability.
Conclusions
[59]I will first deal with the question of whether the Claimant was disabled by reason of dyslexia.[60]The starting point here is the diagnostic assessment of 14 November 2008. The assessment itself was carried out by a psychologist and is detailed, with the conclusions reached in it being based on the outcomes of a series of tests on the Claimant’s literacy, reading, spelling and writing. A description of each test together with the Claimant’s score and where that score placed the Claimant when compared with his peers is set out in the report.[61]There was nothing in the report or in the Claimant’s evidence to the Tribunal which undermined any of the conclusions in the report.[62]The report confirms that the Claimant’s processing of verbal and visual information is slower than average and that these difficulties will be more evident where quick assimilation and/or the recording of written information are important.[63]The Claimant’s dyslexia did not cause him difficulties when working as a dog-handler, but it did cause him difficulties when he was assigned to administrative duties after he was suspended from his dog handler role in 2023. There was nothing to indicate, and indeed it was not submitted by the Respondent, that these administrative duties were unusual in nature and for that reason cannot be considered as normal day to day activities. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Claimant’s carrying out of administrative duties in his role as police officer was a general work activity and amounted to a normal day to day activity. The Tribunal is also satisfied that on other occasions when the Claimant may have had to process and record written information at work, such as training, there was a substantial and adverse effect on the carrying out of a normal day to day activity.[64]Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Claimant has shown that he had a mental or physical impairment, namely dyslexia.[65]That impairment has an effect on his ability to carry out normal day to day activities and that effect is substantial and adverse.[66]The Claimant’s dyslexia is a life long condition.[67]Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the Claimant was disabled by reason of dyslexia at all times material to the claim.[68]The position in relation to the Claimant’s depression is more complicated.[69]The Claimant’s evidence was that he had had depression since 2008, but had managed it himself. He said that on occasions his mood was so low that he was unable to get out of bed. This evidence is not supported by any medical evidence.[70]The Tribunal does not consider that the Claimant was being dishonest in his evidence. The Tribunal accepts that he may have had periods of low mood throughout his working life and felt that he was struggling with daily activities. However, the Claimant has not shown that he has had depression since 2008 and nor has he shown that there was a condition that had a substantial and adverse effect on his ability to carry out day to day activities from that date.[71]The only periods for which there is any evidence that the Claimant had depression which had a substantial and adverse effect on ability to carry out normal day to day activities are the sickness absence from May to November 2016 and the sickness absence from the end of December 2023.[72]Both of these periods of sickness absence coincided with the Claimant experiencing difficulties at work. However, even if the depression was a reaction to events at work, this does not mean that it was not a disability. I there is an impairment for the purposes of s.6 then the cause of that impairment is not really relevant for the purposes of determining whether the Claimant was disabled.[73]Having considered the medical records, the GP report, the OH report and the Claimant’s evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Claimant had a mental impairment, namely depression, from May to November 2016 and from the end of December 2023. This depression was a reaction to events in the Claimant’s workplace.[74]The Respondent’s principal submission was that there was no evidence of any substantial and adverse effect on ability to carry out normal day to day activities.[75]The Claimant’s evidence in his disability impact statement was that when depressed he had difficulty concentrating, sleeping and copying with routine demands and experienced panic attacks.[76]The medical records state that the Claimant was prescribed Sertaline from 23 May 2016 until the end of his sickness absence and was prescribed it again from 02 January 2024 until the date the claim was presented. The Tribunal has to discount the effect of medical treatment when considering whether there was a substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities.[77]As a result of the Claimant’s depression he experienced feelings of suppressed panic and exhaustion. The depression affected his energy and concentration and exacerbated the difficulties he experienced dealing with written documents and his ability to cope with stress.[78]The Claimant’s evidence, the medical records and the OH report indicate that from May – November 2016 and from January 2024 onwards he was unfit for work by reason of depression.[79]The fact that the Claimant was unfit for work by reason of depression from May – November 2016 and from January 2024 onwards, and when the fact that he was prescribed antidepressant medication during these periods is taken into account, means that he has shown that the impairment of depression had an effect on his ability to carry out normal day to day activities which was substantial and adverse. Being unable to attend and carry out work or only being able to do so with difficulty is in my view sufficient to amount to substantial and adverse effect for the purposes of s.6 Equality Act. See Rayner v Turning Point and Others UKEAT/0397/10.[80]The question then is whether the substantial adverse effect was long-term. In my view the two periods of sickness absence by reason of depression were connected, in that both arose from difficulties at work. As such, the Claimant has shown that the depression was likely to recur over a period of 12 months or more, as there is a good chance that the Claimant will have a depressive episode that has a substantial and adverse effect on ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities as a reaction to events at work. Disability has to be assessed at the time of the alleged discriminatory events rather than retrospectively. The Claimant’s depression became likely to recur from January 2024, that is, at the start of his second episode of depressive illness linked to events at work, when it was diagnosed by his GP and he was prescribed antidepressants.[81]Accordingly, my conclusion in relation to the question of whether the Claimant was disabled by reason of depression is that he had a mental impairment, namely depression. That impairment had a substantial and adverse effect upon his ability to carry out normal day to day activities. That effect was long-term.[82]As such the Claimant was a disabled person by reason of depression from January 2024. Approved by