Claimant v Ellenborough Park Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal determined that the claimant was not a disabled person within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010. There was insufficient evidence that the claimant had dyslexia, with no medical evidence or formal diagnosis beyond a 1980s tutor's opinion and an online test. Even if dyslexic, there was insufficient evidence of substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities, as the claimant's evidence showed only that she had to focus and concentrate when typing or using a till, and she made fewer mistakes than others.
Facts
Ms Taylor claimed she was disabled by reason of dyslexia, asserting she had been dyslexic since childhood. She relied on an opinion from a university tutor in the 1980s and an online diagnostic test showing dyslexic traits. She provided no medical evidence or formal diagnosis, stating she could not afford the £600 cost of private assessment and that GPs do not diagnose dyslexia. She claimed dyslexia affected her ability to type and use a till, requiring her to focus and concentrate to avoid reversing letters and numbers. She had completed multiple academic qualifications since the 1980s without seeking adjustments.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant was not disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. There was insufficient evidence to establish she had dyslexia, with no medical evidence beyond her own assertion and a 1980s tutor's unqualified opinion. Even if dyslexic, there was insufficient evidence of substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities, as her evidence showed only that she needed to focus when typing, and she actually made fewer mistakes than colleagues.
Practical note
Claimants must provide robust evidence to establish disability status; self-diagnosis and online tests are insufficient, and even accepted impairments must be shown to have substantial (more than minor or trivial) adverse effects on normal day-to-day activities.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6004948/2025
- Decision date
- 27 October 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No