dyslexia£53,855 is what ignoring a dyslexic employee's concerns costs. Not a six-figure legal bill, not a years-long battle. Just a straightforward tribunal claim that M&S lost comprehensively because they told Rita Jandu, twice, that her dyslexia had "nothing to do" with why she was being made redundant.
The tribunal disagreed with that on every single point.
This article explains exactly what happened, why M&S lost, and what it means if you are currently in a performance review, a redundancy process, or any situation where your written communication is being scored.
What happened to Rita Jandu
Jandu had worked at M&S since 1998 (over two decades, with a brief break in 2013. She was employed as a Layout Planner and had been open about her dyslexia from the start. Most managers had accommodated her straightforwardly: reading through important emails before they went out, colour-coding messages to mark out key points, giving her extra time for written work.
In April 2020 she was placed on furlough due to Covid-19. In July 2020, while still furloughed, she was told she was at risk of redundancy as part of a business restructure. M&S used a scoring matrix to decide who to keep.
The matrix had three categories: M&S Way (Behaviour), Technical Skills, and Leadership Skills. Each was scored 1–4. Jandu scored 2 in Behaviour and 3 in the other two.
One more point in the Behaviour category would have taken her off the at-risk list entirely.
The margin by which Rita Jandu missed keeping her job. One additional point in M&S's redundancy scoring would have removed her from the at-risk list.
During the consultation process, Jandu raised that her dyslexia may have affected her score. She was told the meetings were "not about her dyslexia." She was made redundant in September 2020. She appealed, raising her dyslexia again. Her appeal was dismissed. M&S maintained her condition had "nothing to do" with the outcome.
If your employer is aware of your dyslexia and dismisses it as irrelevant to a performance or scoring process, that dismissal itself is the problem, not proof that your dyslexia isn't relevant.
The specific things she was marked down for
The tribunal did not have to work hard to find the connection between Jandu's low Behaviour score and her dyslexia. M&S's own explanation of why she had scored poorly read like a description of how dyslexia affects written communication at work.
The reasons given for her low score included:
- Mistakes and errors in her work
- Communication appearing rushed or lacking clarity
- Issues with workload balance
- The general tone of her communications
- Being "extremely compliant" (taking notes in meetings to action later rather than engaging verbally)
The tribunal found that all of these were a direct result of her dyslexia. The "compliant" note-taking behaviour, which M&S had apparently scored as passivity, was Jandu's coping mechanism for processing verbal information and ensuring accuracy.
"Selection criteria should not include fluency, speed of response or ability to process complex information quickly as these will indirectly discriminate against dyslexic candidates."
British Dyslexia Association Code of Practice for Employers, cited in the Jandu v M&S tribunal judgmentThe tribunal noted that had M&S consulted Occupational Health when Jandu raised the issue, they would have been directed to exactly this guidance. They did not consult Occupational Health. They did not seek any expert opinion. They simply rejected Jandu's concerns and proceeded.
If you have been told your emails are "rushed," your tone is "off," or your written work needs to improve, and you have dyslexia, those comments are describing your disability. They are not neutral performance observations.
What M&S got wrong, and what the law required
The Equality Act 2010 places a duty on employers to make reasonable adjustments when a provision, criterion, or practice puts a disabled employee at a substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled colleagues. This duty is not optional and it does not require the employee to ask repeatedly.
The moment M&S knew about Jandu's dyslexia, known to M&S since 2013, that duty applied. It applied specifically to the redundancy scoring process.
The reasonable adjustment the tribunal identified was not expensive. It did not require specialist software, external consultants, or significant management time. It required M&S to discount the disability-related elements of Jandu's score when calculating her redundancy risk. That is all.
| What M&S scored | What the tribunal found |
|---|---|
| Rushed or unclear emails | Direct effect of dyslexia: should have been discounted |
| Communication tone | Direct effect of dyslexia: should have been discounted |
| Errors and mistakes | Direct effect of dyslexia: should have been discounted |
| Note-taking rather than verbal engagement | Coping strategy for dyslexia: penalising it was discriminatory |
| Technical skills (scored 3) | Not dyslexia-related: reasonable to score |
| Leadership skills (scored 3) | Not dyslexia-related: reasonable to score |
The tribunal described M&S's approach as demonstrating "closed minds and bias." That phrase matters. The tribunal was not saying M&S acted maliciously. It was saying that once Jandu raised her dyslexia, the employer's response: flat rejection, no investigation, no occupational health referral, no adjustment to the process: this showed an institution that had made up its mind and was not prepared to reconsider.
That approach cost them £53,855 in compensation alone. M&S was also ordered to pay a proportion of Jandu's legal costs (estimated at up to £20,000) because of their high-handed conduct throughout.
The law does not require you to prove your employer acted with malicious intent. It requires you to show that a process put you at a disadvantage because of your disability, and that no adjustment was made. M&S's case shows that "we didn't mean to discriminate" is not a defence.
What this means if you are in a performance process right now
The Jandu case is not unusual in its facts. It is unusual only in that it reached a tribunal and produced a public judgment. The underlying situation, a dyslexic employee scored on written communication quality, the connection to their disability ignored, plays out in workplaces constantly.
If you are currently in a performance review, a redundancy selection process, or any situation where your written work is being formally evaluated, here is the call: disclose your dyslexia in writing before any formal outcome is recorded, or the moment you become aware of a process, whichever comes first.
Your employer's duty to make reasonable adjustments is triggered the moment they know about your dyslexia. It is not triggered by a formal diagnosis certificate. It is not triggered by a request in a specific form. It is triggered by knowledge. If they know, they must act.
What to actually say
An email to HR or your line manager, kept short and factual, is enough to trigger the duty. Something like: "I want to flag that I have dyslexia, which affects my written communication. I'd like to request that any scoring or assessment process takes this into account and that disability-related performance issues are discounted from my score."
Send it. Keep a copy. Date it.
If your employer responds the way M&S did, telling you the process is "not about your dyslexia": that response, in writing, is evidence.
For UK employees, the Access to Work calculator can help you understand what support you could claim, including a workplace needs assessment that would produce a formal report documenting how your dyslexia affects your role. That report is far more useful before a redundancy exercise than after one.
For the disclosure decision itself (whether to tell your employer, when, and how: the disclosure decision guide walks through your specific situation step by step).
The M&S case tells you one thing clearly: the moment you raise your dyslexia in a performance context, your employer must respond to it. "That's not relevant here" is not a legal response to a disability disclosure. It is the beginning of a tribunal claim.