Mrs A H Esteban v M J Fraser T/a D Fraser: 8001585/2025
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case No 8001585/2025Venue Aberdeen by Cloud Video PlatformHearing 18 February 2026
Between
Mrs Angela Herrera EstebanClaimantMalcolm John Fraser t/a Duncan FraserRespondent
Before
Employment Judge HendryDate 12 March 2026
JUDGMENT
The Tribunal finds that the claimant is a disabled person in terms of Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 and was so at the relevant time having the life-long neurological condition of Dyslexia.
REASONS
[1]The claimant raised proceedings against her former employer for disability discrimination. The claims were opposed.[2]The case proceeded to a case management hearing on 25 September 2025 before Judge McCluskey. She noted that the respondent did not accept the claimant was at all material times disabled within the meaning of s.6 of the Equality Act 2010 by reason of Dyslexia. A preliminary hearing was assigned to determine disability status. The claimant was ordered to provide further information including medical evidence which she did.[3]Prior to the hearing on 18 February the parties lodged an agreed Joint Bundle of documents.
Hearing
[4]The claimant elected to give evidence. Because she was not legally represented I explained once more to her the purposes of today’s hearing and confirmed that she would give evidence in relation to her alleged Dyslexia condition. In the absence of a representative I indicated that I would ask her questions about her condition and the documents that had been lodged and that there would then be a short adjournment to allow her to consider whether there was any additional evidence she wanted to give or highlight before Mr Stafford asked questions in cross-examination. I explained that after the cross examination she would have an opportunity to think about the answers she had given to the respondent’s lawyer and to make further comments or refer to documents if she chose to do so.[5]After hearing evidence from the claimant, considering the documents contained in the Joint Bundle, I made the following findings in fact:
Hearing
[1]The claimant is Mrs Angela Herrera Esteban. She is 48 years of age. She spent the early years of her life in Australia with her parents. She attended primary school there. At some point when she was 8 or 9 the school advised her parents that she had Dyslexia. This was the first time she remembers hearing that word. She has never seen any formal reports or official documentation indicating that she had been tested in some way and that this was the conclusion that the school had come to. However, she recalls being taken out of her class from then on and having to spend a certain number of hours per week in what was called “special education” classes. They attempted to help her with her Dyslexia. She was given with memory tests to remember words and shown “flashcards” with words on them. Her recollection is that she was asked to sound out and repeat words.[2]The claimant then progressed to High School. She was only in High School for about a year when her parents moved to Spain. She did not go to school in Spain and there was no formal testing of her Dyslexia carried out in either High School or in Spain that she is aware of.[3]The claimant produced a letter from her High School in Australia which makes no reference to Dyslexia but which says that she made ‘‘careless’’ spelling mistakes. She says this was a symptom of her condition. She could not say if the High School was aware of the diagnosis of dyslexia carried out in primary school.[4]There is a family history of Dyslexia. Her brother Joseph who is 8 years younger than her was diagnosed with Dyslexia at school.[5]The claimant as a young adult was aware that she had weaknesses in relation to a number of matters. She found reading difficult. Anything other than short common words that she was familiar with would cause her difficulty in reading and saying them. She could not recognise words until she was very familiar with them. She would not know how they sounded or should sound. She would have to ask friends or colleagues how they sounded if she saw them written or listen carefully to others using the same word. She found spelling difficult. Words were often “a jumble of letters” to her. Because her spelling was problematical she found it difficult to write. If she was forced to write something she would use simple language. She would take a long time over forms and would have to study them carefully to try and understand them.[6]The claimant takes particular care over forms and spends a long time reading and re-reading them to get them right. She takes pride in getting these matters correct. She recently had to fill in forms in relation to her Visa to stay in the UK and this was done with someone present to assist her.[7]In the course of her evidence the claimant explained that she had moved from an address in Friar Street in Inverness to her current address in Diriebught Road. She had found the word Diriebught particularly difficult. She was unsure how to spell it or pronounce it. She would look at it on Google maps. She attempted to learn how to say it by thinking of the word in two parts as ‘‘dairy’’ and ‘‘Bach’’, two words that she was familiar with and knew how to sound. She understands that final part of the road name was not accurately described by the sound of the name “Bach” but she thought that it was quite close. She listens to others and then attempts to modify how she says a word.[8]The claimant said that she had found Spanish easier because Spanish was spelt much the way it sounds. She moved to Scotland in 2018.[9]The claimant also finds difficulty with understanding and remembering numbers. She could not remember words or numbers and had to note them down. She prepared a conversion table from kilograms to pounds which assisted at work with the respondent because she could not carry out calculations in her head even rough calculations. She also liked to be as accurate as possible. She noted down names and things she needed to remember because her short-term memory was poor and writing things down helped her understand the information and recall it. 10.The claimant moved into the hospitality trade as soon as she left school. She tried working as a waitress but was eventually asked to only serve in the bar or work in the kitchen carrying out cleaning tasks because she found noting down orders difficult and made repeated mistakes. She enjoys working as a cleaner as the work is repetitive and straight-forward and she does not daily have to read, write or count. 11.The claimant works as a cleaner. She carries out simple cleaning tasks. She is not involved in preparing risk assessments or contracts. The claimant worked at points in a self-employed capacity and had to invoice clients. This she said was straightforward as the jobs were for two or three hours duration and the invoices were all the same apart for the date and occasionally the client. 12.The claimant explained that when she joined the respondent’s business she says that she told them about her Dyslexia. She believes that her Dyslexia caused her to make mistakes at work which led to staff becoming annoyed with her. 13.The claimant talked about the training she had received when she started work. She was given a small booklet to read on health and safety. She had difficulty with the spellings in the booklet and she read and re-read it many times. She used Google to try and understand it. She was determined to pass the training and was excited at having a new job in an old established firm. 14.The claimant reads a little when she goes to bed but does not regularly read magazines or newspapers which she finds difficult. When she reads she spends a lot of time on the internet looking up how to spell and how to sound words she comes across. The claimant relies on familiarity with language and the regular repetition of new words to understand and remember them. 15.The claimant has been assessed by the DSS in relation to work capability and found to have limited capacity. This took into account her other health difficulties such as her bunions. 16.The claimant finds timetables difficult to understand with the combinations of words and times and resorts to checking bus timetables with the staff at the bus station or using Google. 17.Ms Esteban prefers cleaning work and has gravitated to that work because of her Dyslexia. The work is straightforward and simple. When she texts she uses simple language”. 18.The claimant explained that she kept a jotter at work and would note everything down and check things carefully. She could not “hold’’ numbers in her mind. Her short-term memory was poor. 19.Prior to the hearing the claimant was asked to provide evidence of her Dyslexia. She could not provide any reports or other documentation from school other than the letter from the High School. She googled Dyslexia and found Dyslexia UK. They suggested she take a short online reading test which she did. Reading Test and Assessment[20]The claimant referred to the test results (JBp86-92). She had spent a long time completing the reading test because she wanted to get it right. As the test went on, the text that she had to read and consider became more complicated. The results showed that she had spent 81 minutes completing the test where the optimal time was 30-40 minutes. She had scored low to average in most parts of the test. The report in the summary stated: ‘‘If scores on overall reading, silent reading or comprehension are in the low to below average category (amber through to red) and your first and/or fluent language is English, then this could indicate a processing difficulty or SpLD/dyslexia.’’[21]Following the hearing test the claimant arranged through Dyslexia UK to carry out a more detailed assessment using the internet. It was carried out by a specialist teacher assessor on the 19 October and a report prepared (JB95-118). 22.The conclusions were: “Diagnostic outcome. This assessment, along with observations made and feedback available confirms that Angela has the characteristics and difficulties associated with a profile of dyslexia. (See appendix 3: Delphi Definition of Dyslexia 2025.) Angela has:• Significant processing difficulties that have affected the acquisition of reading and spelling• many aspects of literacy attainment are weak in relation to age, standard teaching and instruction, and level of other attainments• she has difficulties in reading, writing, and with phonological awareness In contrast to some of the significant difficulties she faces with many of the reading and processing tasks, she was far better placed to access the verbal tasks asked of her. Her verbal ability is in the mid average range. Some elements of reading are challenging for her, but she was able to understand what she read to an acceptable level, with her reading comprehension in the expected range for her age and experience. When she is confident with the topic she is writing about, she was able to produce an acceptable amount of writing. Copying is not easy for her, and it was apparent that knowledge of the alphabet sequence was not automatic, nor secure. This will cause her significant difficulties when working with written text. Phonological processing are the underlying skills needed when working with the sounds of language. It is a key component of literacy acquisition and development. Angela’s overall phonological awareness is well below the level expected for her age and experience, which will affect the speed with which she can work. This difficulty will be a source of significant frustration for her in the workplace. Angela’s phonological memory is weak. She was unable to recall strings of digits with any confidence, and found recalling increasingly long, made-up words, very difficult to complete. Her ability in this area is well below the level expected for her age and experience. Her reading speed and reading efficiency was weak. Reading is not automatic for her, and she will need support to access unfamiliar written text.’’[23]The claimant found the assessment stressful and commented that when she was anxious her ability to recognise words and remember things becomes badly affected. The claimant tried really hard to engage with the testing that took place and found it “intense.’’ Witness 6. I found the claimant to be a credible witness in relation to the history and effects of her condition. As a historian she was a little vague especially about her earlier life but this given her age when she first encountered Dyslexia and the other upheavals in her early life this is understandable. Submissions 7. Mr Stafford submitted that the claimant had not demonstrated that she had a condition which had a substantial effect on her ability to carry out day to day activities. He accepted that the condition was lifelong. He pointed to the fact that she did in fact read, had run a business as a self employed cleaner and had been able to make up invoices for customers including dealing with VAT. He questioned if there was truly an adverse impact on actual day to day activities. He suggested that the comment made in High School that she was ‘‘careless’’ might cast doubt on whether she actually had an impairment. He also pointed to the reading test which showed that she was average or below average which was not in his view sufficient to show an adverse effect. 8. The claimant asked the Tribunal to accept her evidence and reiterated that the respondent was aware of her condition and she had been picked on because of the effects that condition had on her. Discussion and Decision 9. The relevant law is contained in the Equality Act 2010 (EqA). Section 6(1) EqA provides: ‘‘A person (P) has a disability if — P has a physical or mental impairment, and the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on P’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.’’ 10. Schedule 1 of the EqA contains supplementary provisions in relation to the determination of disability. Paragraph 2 states ‘‘(1) The effect of an impairment is long-term if it has lasted for at least 12 months, it is likely to last for at least 12 months, or it is likely to last for the rest of the life of the person affected.’’ 11. The Tribunal also had regard to the ‘‘Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of disability” (the Guidance). This does not itself impose legal obligations, but the Tribunal must take it into account where relevant. 12. The Guidance at paragraph B1 deals with the meaning of ‘substantial adverse effect’ and states: ‘‘The requirement that an adverse effect on normal day-today activities should be a substantial one reflects the general understanding of disability as a limitation going beyond the normal differences in ability which may exist among people. A substantial effect is one that is more than a minor or trivial effect.’’ 13. Paragraph B1 should be read in conjunction with Section D of the Guidance, which considers what is meant by ‘normal day-to-day activities’. 24. Paragraph D2 states that it is not possible to provide an exhaustive list of day to-day activities. 25. Paragraph D3 provides that: ‘In general, day-to-day activities are things that people do on a regular or daily basis, and examples include shopping, reading and writing, having a conversation or using the telephone, watching television, getting washed and dressed, preparing and eating food, carrying out household tasks, walking and travelling by various forms of transport, and taking part in social activities.’ 26. D16 provides that normal day-to-day activities include activities that are required to maintain personal well-being. It provides that account should be taken of whether the effects of an impairment have an impact on whether the person is inclined to carry out or neglect basic functions such as eating, drinking, sleeping, or personal hygiene. 14. In Goodwin v Patent Office [1999] IRLR 4, the EAT held that in cases where disability status is disputed, there are four essential questions which a Tribunal should consider separately and, where appropriate, sequentially. These are: 1. Does the person have a physical or mental impairment? 2. Does that impairment have an adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities? 3. Is that effect substantial? 4. Is that effect long-term? 15. The burden of proof is on a claimant to show that she satisfies the statutory definition of disability contained in the Act. 16. There are a number of authorities which have established that normal day-today activities can include work-related activities (Chacón Navas v Eurest Colectividades SA [2007] ICR 1 and Sobhi v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2013] UKEAT/0518/12/BA). 17. In this case the claimant pointed to activities at work that she found difficult such as reading, mental arithmetic/calculations and her short-term memory causing her to use a notebook or jotter. 18. I accepted that there was sufficient evidence for the Tribunal to accept that the claimant had demonstrated that she had a neurological condition. Strictly spealing Dyslexia is an umbrella term used to cover a number of neurological deficits but that makes no difference here as whatever the exact condition the claimant might be diagnosed with we have to consider the symptoms and their impact. The issue in the present case was how minor or trivial the dayto-day impact of the condition was. 19. Mr Stafford suggested that the fact that the claimant had been self-employed and been able to cope with the necessary requirements of that status pointed to there being no material impact of her ability to read labels on cleaning products and prepare invoices etc. I did not accept that submission. It was clear that the claimant could read slowly and with difficulty often using her smart phone to help when it was important to do so. It was apparent from her evidence that she used coping strategies such as her notebook and as noted earlier her smart phone. She is not running any significant business and invoicing for short cleaning jobs where the calculations were minor and repetitive. 20. The issue as highlighted by the respondent’s solicitor’s submissions was whether the condition’s impact was trivial or minor. The report from Dyslexia UK following her online assessment by them (dealt with in paragraph 21 of the findings in fact) appears to be a detailed and professionally prepared assessment and a report on which the Tribunal can put some weight. That shows that the impacts of her condition are marked. 21. The focus is on what the claimant cannot do or can only do with difficulty or some assistance. The Tribunal must bear in mind that the word ‘‘substantial’’ is defined in Section 212(1) of the Act. Both words appear synonymous. However, differences were detected by the EAT in the case of Anwar v Tower Hamlets College EAT 0091/10 which suggested that an impairment could be more than trivial but still minor. This view was not followed in the later case of Aderemi v London and South Eastern Railway Ltd (2013) ICR 591. They held that unless the Tribunal held that it was trivial or insubstantial then it must be treated as a substantial condition. I do not believe that I need enter into discussing these viewpoints as the claimant’s condition does not appear to be either trivial or minor in the Tribunal’s judgment. 22. Although I was not referred to the case I had regard to the case of Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2007) ICR 1522. That case involved a Dyslexic Police Officer. The Tribunal held that he was not disabled because although the condition was disadvantageous to him in comparison to the ordinary average norm of the population the Tribunal believed the condition had no more than a trial impact on him. The decision as reversed on appeal with Mr Justice Elias stressing that the assessment was that of the claimant and what they could do and not a comparison with the average person and what they could do. In other words, it is what the claimant could do and what they could have done without the impairment that is the comparative exercise that is carried out. 23. In the present case it seems clear that the claimant, who is an intelligent and articulate person would have been likely to have found a much more challenging career than that of a cleaner if she did not have this condition. In ways that she recognises her condition has held her back from progressing in the hospitality trade.[24]For the above reasons I hold that the claimant is a disabled person having a lifelong condition namely Dyslexia which has a substantial impact on her ability to carry out day-to-day activities. The case must now proceed to a full hearing.