Disability discrimination payout for dyslexic accountant

In Patel v Lucy A Raymond & Sons Limited, a trainee accountant who represented himself has won a case against employer, after his boss said she had made “the wrong decision in giving a dyslexic person the job” whilst firing him from his job at the Lloyd’s insurance broker.

Insurance firm founder Lucy Raymond-Williams fired Patel just a month after first taking him on as a trainee accountant in 2020 – after he was forced to work from home just two days into first starting his job due to the UK’s national lockdown policy.

In explaining her decision, the company boss told the tribunal Patel had “expected things to be handed to him on a plate,” as she claimed she had initially hired the young accountant “to show what people with dyslexia can achieve.”

In the Employment Tribunal

The employment tribunal heard how Mr Patel had struggled with his work and taken longer than expected to complete his tasks, as it was told that other colleagues had raised concerns about his abilities and lack of progress. He sued his former employee for unfair dismissal, age and disability discrimination.

The employment tribunal said the young accountant – who graduated with a first-class degree in accounting and management – had not faced discrimination due to his age but said he had faced discrimination because of his dyslexia. He won his case under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 for discrimination because of something arising out of his disability.

The employment tribunal said, “We also have regard to Mrs Williams response to the question why she had suddenly decided to dispense with the claimant’s services and engage MKS - “I had taken the wrong decision in giving a dyslexic person the job”. This remark could support a suggestion that Mrs Williams had started to come to the conclusion that the claimant’s dyslexia was a factor in his perceived inability to carry out the role satisfactorily.

In short, the respondent’s explanations for dismissing the claimant (which was a sudden about-turn on a decision a month or so previously) were not consistent, not adequately documented, contained criticisms not previously shared with him (some of which seem bolstered after-the-event) with the context that the decision-maker believed she had made a mistake offering the job to someone with dyslexia in the first place. We conclude that the respondent has failed to discharged the burden it shoulders. We uphold this element of the claimant’s claim”.