Lloyds paid £470,000 for a dyslexia dismissal. What went wrong.

Over £470,000. That's the compensation Lloyds Banking Group paid after dismissing a dyslexic employee for something his disability caused. Borg-Neal v Lloyds Banking Group PLC [2023] UKET 2202667/2022 is one of the most cited UK dyslexia discrimination cases in recent years. The principle it established goes well beyond one training room incident.

What happened in the training room

Carl Borg-Neal had worked at Lloyds for over 30 years. In 2021, he attended an internal race awareness training session focused on intent versus effect in discriminatory language. During the discussion, he tried to ask how a manager should respond when members of a minority community use a word that would be offensive coming from someone outside that community.

While formulating the question, he said a racial slur in full rather than using an abbreviation. He apologized immediately. Lloyds dismissed him for gross misconduct.

The tribunal found the dismissal was wrong. Not because the word wasn't offensive, but because Lloyds had failed to consider one material fact before deciding to dismiss: Borg-Neal had dyslexia, and his dyslexia directly contributed to what happened in that room.

If your employer has ever disciplined you for something you said, wrote, or did under cognitive pressure at work, the tribunal's reasoning here applies directly to your situation.

The dyslexia symptom most employers don't know about

When people think about dyslexia at work, they think about reading speed or spelling accuracy. The Borg-Neal case put a different symptom on the legal record: difficulty structuring spoken language when concentrating hard on a complex problem.

Medical evidence showed that Borg-Neal's dyslexia caused him to lose his train of thought mid-sentence. To compensate, he would "spurt things out" before the thought disappeared. In the training session, he was concentrating on the substance of a difficult question about workplace race dynamics. His verbal filter didn't have the bandwidth to catch the phrasing at the same time. The tribunal accepted this evidence fully.

Many dyslexic people describe exactly this pattern. The more cognitively demanding the situation, the less capacity there is for self-editing spoken output in real time. It shows up in fast-paced meetings, live presentations, difficult conversations with managers, and high-stakes verbal exchanges where there's no time to plan what you're going to say before you say it.

The tribunal's acceptance of verbal impulsivity as a recognised dyslexia manifestation is the formal legal record that this symptom exists, that employers can be expected to know it exists, and that it requires consideration before any disciplinary action is taken.

If your dyslexia affects how you speak under pressure, not just how you write, that's worth documenting in any adjustments request you make to your employer.

The law Lloyds broke, and why it's different from what most people expect

The tribunal found Lloyds guilty of two things: unfair dismissal and discrimination under Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010. Most people who've read about dyslexia rights are more familiar with Section 20, which covers the failure to make reasonable adjustments. Section 15 is a separate and often underused protection.

Section 15 covers "discrimination arising from disability." It says an employer cannot treat you unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of your disability, unless they can show the treatment was a proportionate response to a legitimate aim. The employer must also have known, or ought reasonably to have known, about the disability at the time.

The test does not require intent. Lloyds didn't need to have thought "he said that because he's dyslexic, and we're punishing him for it." They needed only to have treated Borg-Neal unfavourably because of something that arose from his disability. The dismissal met that test.

The award broke down as follows:

• Approximately £309,868 in future loss of earnings, including a 5% uplift for Lloyds' failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice
• £23,000 for personal injury (Borg-Neal developed severe anxiety and depression following the dismissal)
• £15,000 for injury to feelings
• £3,000 in aggravated damages, because Lloyds' statement resisting reinstatement was ruled "high-handed" and distorted the tribunal's liability finding

(Source: Hill Dickinson case analysis, February 2024; Employment Tribunal UKET 2202667/2022.)

The tribunal also ordered Lloyds to circulate the liability judgment to its UK Board, to place a note in Borg-Neal's personnel file confirming the dismissal was unfair and discriminatory, to notify its regulator in writing, and to provide a neutral reference for any future employer who asks.

One note on the case's current status: Lloyds appealed the liability decision to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. As of publication, no EAT judgment overturning the finding has been reported publicly. Check BAILII (bailii.org) for any subsequent EAT outcome if you intend to rely on this case in your own situation.

Section 15 is the protection to cite if your employer has disciplined or dismissed you for behaviour that came from your dyslexia. You don't need to prove they knew they were discriminating. You need to show the behaviour arose from your disability and the employer knew about it.

The adjustments that would have cost Lloyds nothing

Borg-Neal had disclosed his dyslexia to Lloyds before the training session. His employer already knew. That means the reasonable adjustments duty under the Equality Act 2010 was already active before the incident occurred.

Two adjustments could have changed the outcome entirely. Providing training materials in advance would have let Borg-Neal formulate his questions before the session, removing the live cognitive pressure that contributed to the word slipping out. Allowing written question submissions alongside the verbal discussion would have given him an alternative channel where his verbal impulsivity wasn't a risk at all.

Neither adjustment would have cost anything. Neither is unusual in training environments where cognitive accessibility is taken seriously. Lloyds offered neither.

Most dyslexic employees don't ask for adjustments to live verbal situations because it doesn't occur to them, or to their employers, that dyslexia affects spoken communication. The Borg-Neal case is the tribunal record that it does, and that employers can be held liable when they don't account for it.

Most dyslexic employees haven't identified which specific situations create the most risk for them. The reasonable adjustments builder turns your specific challenges, including live verbal pressure, into a structured conversation plan and a draft email your employer can act on.

If you're in training sessions, high-pressure meetings, or any live verbal environment where cognitive load runs high, advance materials and a written alternative channel are legitimate adjustments. Tribunal case law supports them.

What this means for you

Here's what the evidence points toward.

If your dyslexia affects how you speak under pressure, name that explicitly in any adjustments request. Asking for advance notice of complex verbal discussions, or permission to submit questions in writing before a meeting, are legitimate adjustments with tribunal-level case law behind them. Most dyslexic employees ask only for written instructions and proofreading time. The Borg-Neal case shows verbal adjustments carry exactly the same legal weight.

If your employer has disciplined you for something you said in a high-stress situation and you have dyslexia, read the Section 15 test before you decide how to respond. You don't need to show intent on the employer's part. You need to show the behaviour arose from your disability and the employer knew about it. Lloyds, with a full HR and legal function, lost this case on those facts.

If you're still deciding whether to disclose your dyslexia at work, the calculus here is straightforward: Borg-Neal had disclosed, and that disclosure was the basis for the tribunal's finding that Lloyds knew about his disability when they dismissed him. Disclosure is what makes the Equality Act's protections enforceable. The disclosure decision guide covers the timing, format, and exactly what to put in writing to create a paper trail that holds up.

For US readers: Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 has no direct equivalent in US law, but the EEOC's guidance on disability-related conduct requires employers to consider whether behaviour is connected to a disability before taking disciplinary action. UK tribunal decisions aren't binding in the US, but they're consistent with where the ADA accommodations framework points. The principle is the same: if the behaviour came from the disability, the employer has to ask what adjustment would have prevented it before reaching for discipline.

If your employer has ever punished you for something your dyslexia caused, Borg-Neal v Lloyds Banking Group [2023] UKET 2202667/2022 is your starting point. Read the Section 15 argument, get a note from your assessing specialist documenting how your dyslexia affects spoken communication under pressure, and speak to ACAS before your next disciplinary meeting.