Claimant v Solihull Community Housing Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the PCP (requiring applicants to evidence in writing that they met essential criteria) did not put the claimant at a substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled persons. The claimant's own evidence stated he had excellent written communication skills, and his witness statements and other litigation documents demonstrated clear and articulate written communication. The medical evidence did not support substantial disadvantage in written communication, with the 1997 report only noting style issues not content. The tribunal distinguished this case from GLS v Brookes where social imagination was required for hypothetical scenarios, finding that recalling examples from one's own life did not require social imagination and there was no medical evidence the claimant had memory recall difficulties.
Facts
The claimant, who has autism and dyslexia, applied for a part-time Accounts Manager role. He submitted a late application and requested as a reasonable adjustment that the respondent contact him to clarify anything missing before making a decision not to interview him. The respondent did not do so, believing it would disadvantage other candidates. The claimant scored 7-8 out of 15 on the essential criteria and was not shortlisted for interview (the threshold was 10/15). He brought a claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments, arguing that requiring him to evidence skills in writing placed him at a substantial disadvantage due to his disabilities.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the claim. They found that the PCP did not place the claimant at a substantial disadvantage. The medical evidence did not support that he had difficulties with written communication content (only style issues in a 1997 report). The claimant stated he had excellent written communication skills on his application form and his witness statements and litigation documents demonstrated clear written communication. The tribunal distinguished cases requiring social imagination for hypothetical scenarios, finding that recalling real-life examples did not require this and there was no medical evidence the claimant had memory recall difficulties.
Practical note
In reasonable adjustment claims relating to job applications, tribunals will scrutinise whether medical and objective evidence supports the alleged substantial disadvantage, and may give weight to the claimant's own statements about their abilities and their demonstrated performance in other written tasks.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1303401/2023
- Decision date
- 11 June 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 6
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Applicant for part-time Accounts Manager role (not hired)
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No