Mr Paterson (P), a senior policeman, discovered after more than 15 years in the police force that he was dyslexic. He had not experienced any previous difficulties with report writing, financial literacy or any other aspects of his demanding job. However, medical evidence suggested that he ought to be given 25% extra time in his examinations for promotion to the rank of superintendent as a result of his newly- diagnosed dyslexia.
Whilst the employment tribunal accepted that P had dyslexia, it ruled that it did not have a ‘substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities’ (this is one of the requirements which must be met in order to satisfy the definition of disability under the DDA).
The EAT held that in assessing adverse impact of the dyslexia, the employment tribunal had fallen into the error of comparing P’s performance with the “ordinary average norm of the population as a whole”. What the tribunal should have done was compare what P could in fact do with what he would be able to do without his impairment.
The EAT found that the assessments and examinations that P had to undertake were normal day-to-day activities. It was obvious that a person who requires 25% longer to complete such an assessment would be at a substantial disadvantage than if he did not have dyslexia. The EAT overturned the decision of the tribunal and found P to be disabled under the DDA, stating that any decision to the contrary would undermine the whole purpose of the disability discrimination legislation.