Ms C Edwards v The Chief Constable Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary: 6020496/2025
JUDGMENT
The Claimant was not disabled by dyslexia during the period relevant to her claimsREASONS
[1]This preliminary hearing was convened to determine whether the Claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of dyslexia during the relevant period, namely October 2023 to June 2025.[2]The Respondent accepts that the Claimant was disabled during the relevant period by reason of depression.[3]During the hearing, the Claimant confirmed that she no longer contended that she was disabled by reason of dyspraxia. That allegation was therefore withdrawn and did not fall for determination.[4]The sole issue for determination was whether, during the relevant period, the Claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of dyslexia.[5]The burden rested upon the Claimant to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that:a. she had a mental impairment;b. the impairment had a substantial adverse effect on her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities; andc. the effect was long term. Evidence[6]The Tribunal considered a bundle of 402 pages including:• the Claimant's Disability Impact Statement;• written submissions from both parties;• medical and Occupational Health records;• Performance Development Reviews ("PDRs"), supervision records and return-to-work documentation; and• neurodiversity screening material, including the QuickScreen dyslexia assessment.[7]The Claimant gave evidence and was cross-examined. Both parties made oral and written submissions.[8]The Claimant's case was that she had longstanding difficulties with reading, spelling, memory, organisation, information processing and sequencing numbers attributable to dyslexia. She relied in particular upon a 2024 screening exercise identifying "borderline indicators" of dyslexia.[9]The Respondent's case was that there was no diagnosis of dyslexia, no expert evidence supporting its existence, and insufficient evidence of any substantial adverse effect during the relevant period.The Law
[10]Section 6 Equality Act 2010 provides that a person has a disability if they have a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. "Substantial" means more than minor or trivial.[11]Dyslexia is capable in principle of constituting a mental impairment. As recognised in Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, an individual may be highly intelligent and professionally successful whilst nevertheless being disabled by reason of dyslexia. The question is always fact-sensitive and depends upon the effects of the condition on the individual concerned.[12]In J v DLA Piper UK LLP the EAT emphasised that the Tribunal must focus upon the effect of the impairment on the individual's day-to-day activities.[13]Where the existence of a mental impairment is disputed, the authorities recognise the importance of appropriate expert evidence. In Morgan v Staffordshire University and Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Morris the EAT observed that tribunals will often require expert assistance when assessing the existence, effect and duration of an alleged mental impairment. Findings of Fact Absence of diagnosis and expert evidenceFindings of Fact
[14]The Claimant has never received a diagnosis of dyslexia.[15]Nor has she produced expert evidence from an educational psychologist, neuropsychologist or other appropriately qualified specialist capable of diagnosing dyslexia or assessing its functional effects.[16]A diagnosis is not a legal prerequisite to establishing disability. However, where the existence of the impairment itself is disputed, the absence of both diagnosis and expert evidence is a significant evidential deficiency. Expert evidence would have been particularly helpful in this case. QuickScreen assessment[17]The principal evidence relied upon by the Claimant is an April 2024 QuickScreen dyslexia assessment.[18]The assessment expressly states that it is a screening tool and not a diagnostic instrument. It identified only "borderline indicators" of dyslexia and did not identify mild, moderate or strong indicators.[19]The underlying results showed average or above-average performance across most assessed domains.[20]I attach limited weight to the assessment as evidence either of dyslexia or of substantial functional impairment. Contemporaneous evidence and reported difficulties[21]I reviewed extensive contemporaneous documentation including Occupational Health records, GP records, welfare discussions, return-to-work documentation, supervision records and annual performance reviews.[22]These contain repeated references to depression, anxiety, workplace stress, family circumstances, physical health issues and financial pressures. In contrast, there are very few references to dyslexia during the relevant period.[23]The Claimant had numerous interactions with managers, Occupational Health advisers, counsellors, therapists and medical professionals. The records do not demonstrate any consistent reporting of dyslexia-related difficulties causing substantial impairment.[24]I place particular weight on two contemporaneous statements made during the relevant period.[25]In a detention questionnaire dated 2 October 2023, the Claimant answered negatively when asked whether she had a neurodiverse condition, learning disability or learning disorder.[26]Following the April 2024 screening exercise, the Claimant informed a medical professional that she was "borderline dyslexic" but that it did not affect her comprehension.[27]Those statements were made outside the context of litigation and are difficult to reconcile with the later assertion that dyslexia had a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities.[28]Although the Claimant's Disability Impact Statement and oral evidence describe longstanding difficulties with reading, spelling, memory, organisation, information processing and sequencing numbers, I found little contemporaneous support for those allegations.[29]The extensive performance and supervision records consistently portray the Claimant as a capable and successful police officer. They record successful completion of complex investigations, examinations, leadership responsibilities, project work and promotion-related development. They contain no meaningful evidence of substantial dyslexia-related difficulties or any need for workplace adjustments arising from dyslexia.[30]I accept that successful employment does not preclude disability. However, the absence of contemporaneous evidence of the substantial effects now alleged is a significant factor when assessing whether the statutory test is met. Coping strategies[31]The Claimant may have used coping strategies such as re-reading techniques, and proofreading assistance although there is little in the contemporaneous documents to show this.[32]The evidence does not establish that any such measures were required because of a substantial impairment or that, without them, the Claimant would have experienced effects that were more than minor or trivial. Financial difficulties and background history[33]The Claimant also relied upon difficulties managing finances and budgeting.[34]I am not satisfied that those difficulties support the existence of dyslexia. The evidence suggests they arose in the context of significant life stressors, including divorce, caring responsibilities, bereavement, financial pressures, physical injury and depression.[35]I note also there is a complete lack of documentary evidence of concerns, assessments, adjustments or referrals relating to dyslexia throughout the Claimant's education or during her long policing career up to 2024.[36]The Claimant completed her education, joined the police in 2007, achieved promotion to Sergeant and passed professional examinations, including the Inspectors' exam.[37]While dyslexia may remain undiagnosed into adulthood, the absence of any documented history is a relevant evidential factor.[38]Dyslexia was first raised as a possible explanation for workplace difficulties in 2024, following the Claimant's arrest in October 2023. Whilst not determinative, the timing is relevant when assessing the weight to be attached to retrospective assertions of longstanding impairment.Conclusions
[39]Having considered the evidence as a whole, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Claimant established that she had dyslexia amounting to a mental impairment within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 during the relevant period.[40]In any event, even if dyslexia were established as an impairment, the evidence falls well short of establishing a substantial adverse effect on the Claimant's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. J S Burns