Claimant v DHU Healthcare CIC

The tribunal found that the claimant was not appointed to the permanent IUC Pharmacist role because she was unsuitable: she could not work weekends, could not commit to 15 hours per week, had poor interview performance, low productivity (1–1.5 calls per hour versus the expected 3–4), and was perceived as difficult to manage. These were genuine non-discriminatory reasons unrelated to her dyslexia.

The decision not to shortlist the claimant for the January 2021 external IUC Pharmacist application was due to the respondent's Recruitment and Selection policy: candidates who did not reach the appointable standard could not reapply for the same role for six months. A non-disabled comparator in the same position would have been treated identically.

The claimant was not appointed to the Clinical Advisor role in February 2021 because of her poor interview performance. She scored an average of 2.1 out of 10 on questions, indicating weak answers. This was a non-discriminatory reason unrelated to her dyslexia.

The tribunal found the claimant failed to provide sufficient evidence that her poor interview performance arose from slowness in processing verbal information due to dyslexia. The Educational Psychologist's report focused on reading and writing difficulties, not verbal processing. The tribunal could not conclude that the 'something arising' was established.

The reason for not shortlisting the claimant for the January 2021 role was the respondent's six-month re-application policy, not a perception that she was difficult to manage due to dyslexia. The tribunal rejected the claimant's assertion that the policy was applied because of her disability.

Although the tribunal accepted the claimant was perceived as difficult to manage, this perception arose from her refusal to clarify her work intentions, her unwillingness to work weekends or commit to 15 hours per week, and her dissatisfaction with the recruitment process — not from her dyslexia or any need for additional support due to dyslexia.

The claimant failed to provide sufficient evidence that the interview-based assessment placed her at a substantial disadvantage due to difficulty processing verbal communication. The Educational Psychologist's report did not establish this. Moreover, the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know of any such disadvantage, as the claimant never informed them or requested adjustments prior to interviews.