Disadvantage and disablement

Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis EAT TLR 22 August

The claimant, a chief inspector of police, discovered in 2004 that he suffered from dyslexia. He alleged that he was disabled and had been discriminated against for a reason relating to his disability, particularly in determining whether he should be promoted and that his employers had failed to make reasonable adjustments. Where it is not disputed that an employee is suffering a substantial disadvantage because of the effect of his disability in the procedures adopted for deciding between candidates for promotion, the only proper inference was that those effects must involve a more than trivial effect on his ability to undertake normal day-today activities. It would fundamentally undermine the protection for which the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was designed to provide were it otherwise. Accordingly, the employment tribunal had been wrong to dismiss the claim on the grounds that the claimant was disadvantaged but not disabled; he was disabled within the meaning of the Act.