Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

EAT: Elias J (President), Mrs C Baelz and Mr R Lyons: 23 July 2007

The claimant, a chief inspector of police, made a complaint of disability discrimination, claiming that his employers had failed to make sufficient adjustments to mitigate the adverse effects of his dyslexia particularly in the process for determining whether he might be promoted to superintendent. An employment tribunal, considering as a preliminary issue of law whether he was disabled within the meaning of section 1 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, accepted that the claimant needed 25% extra time to complete an assessment for promotion and that he was at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with non-dyslexic colleagues competing for superintendent positions, but held that a promotion assessment was not a normal day-to-day activity and his dyslexia did not have more than a minor impact on his day-to-day activities and that he was not disadvantaged when compared with the ordinary norm of the population as a whole.

The claimant appealed.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal held:
It was almost inevitable that dyslexia, as an impairment affecting memory or ability to concentrate, learn or understand within paragraph 4(1)(g) of Schedule 1 to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, would have an adverse effect on ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. To be substantial the effect had to fall outside the normal range of effects that might be expected from a cross-section of the population, but, when assessing the effect, the comparison was with the way in which the individual in fact carried out the activity in question and the way he would have carried it out if not impaired. Completing an assessment or examination was properly to be described as a normal day-to-day activity, and the act of reading and comprehension was itself such an activity. Further, "day-to-day activities" in section 1(1) of the Act should be given a meaning which encompassed the activities relevant to participation in professional life, and, since the effect of the claimant's disability might adversely affect his promotion prospects, it had to hinder his participation in professional life. Accordingly, accepting that the claimant was disadvantaged to the extent of requiring extra time to do the assessment, there was a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities and he was disabled within the meaning of section 1(1).

The appeal was allowed.

Appearances: James Laddie (Russell Jones & Walker) for the claimant; Alison Padfield (Directorate of Legal Services, Metropolitan Police Service) for the commissioner.