A disability charity fabricated claims. It cost £96,128.

A tribunal in Dundee just fined a charity £96,128. Its job was helping disabled people find work. Instead, it made up claims about two of its own staff.

You've probably had a manager whose story about you didn't quite add up. Maybe a concern got raised that didn't match what actually happened. This case shows what a tribunal does with that pattern, once someone finally writes it all down.

What FEAT actually did

Fife Employment Access Trust, known as FEAT, ran a five-year jobs project. Dr Norma Clark managed it. Christina Goble was her support worker.

Dr Clark has dyslexia. Her type causes blurred text, tiredness, and sensory overload. Both women were sacked out of the blue.

FEAT sent a letter. There was no meeting. There was no warning at all.

The tribunal said FEAT had wanted rid of both women since October 2023. FEAT claimed Ms Goble's contract had simply ended. FEAT claimed Dr Clark's job was cut for cost reasons.

Both claims were false. Ms Goble was on an open-ended contract, not a fixed one. Dr Clark had a permanent job, not a temporary one.

FEAT had also suspended Ms Goble over a fraud claim that was never proven. It made no adjustments to reduce her disadvantage during that process.

The tribunal found FEAT made up several claims about Dr Clark too. It said she'd contacted staff while suspended, and caused a data breach. Neither was true.

The tribunal called this behaviour "Orwellian and unreasonable."

So what for you: if your employer's story about you keeps changing, that change is proof. Write down each version, with the date, as soon as you hear it.

The equipment check that never happened

FEAT also threatened to discipline Dr Clark. Her offence was not using some office equipment.

But she couldn't use it. FEAT had never set it up to work with her dyslexia.

The tribunal called this "surprising." FEAT works with disabled people every day. It had still skipped a basic equipment check before handing the gear over.

This kind of check has a name: a workplace needs assessment. In the UK, Access to Work can pay for one.

It gives you a written report your employer can act on, rather than a guess. Our Access to Work guide explains how to ask for it.

You don't need to wait for your employer to offer this. Ask for a needs assessment yourself, in writing. Name the exact task the current setup makes harder.

So what for you: if a tool or piece of software is the real problem, ask for a written assessment first. Don't wait for a warning letter.

Why paper beat FEAT's story

The hearing ran for 17 days in Dundee. It ended on 6 November 2025. The written judgment came out in February 2026.

FEAT's case fell apart on paper. Its own contracts proved its claims false.

There was no record of any meeting with either woman. Nobody picked up their work while they were off suspended.

This case was heard by Employment Tribunals (Scotland), not an English or Welsh tribunal. The rules that matter here are the same either way. The Equality Act 2010 covers workers right across the UK, and so does the right to bring a claim through ACAS first.

Ms Goble had also raised a formal concern about how FEAT handled data, just before she was suspended. UK law protects staff who do that. Her treatment afterwards counted heavily against FEAT at the hearing.

None of this helped FEAT, because FEAT had written almost nothing down. The two women had. A FEAT spokesperson later said the charity had "learned lessons" and fixed its HR process since.

So what for you: your own same-day notes carry real weight. They matter most against a manager who prefers to keep things verbal.

What happened to the jobs project

FEAT had funding for the jobs project until September 2024. Both women were suspended long before that date. The tribunal found no evidence that anyone else picked up their work.

The project was simply left to wither. People who needed that support lost it, through no fault of their own. Fighting a needs assessment turned out to be more work for FEAT than running the project properly.

That's a common pattern. A small fix now, like setting up a laptop correctly, is almost always cheaper than the fight that follows if it's ignored.

Most reasonable adjustments cost nothing at all to put in place.

So what for you: a cheap fix now beats an expensive dispute later, for you and for your employer. Say so plainly if you're offering your employer that trade.

Who this protects, and who doesn't need a diagnosis first

The Equality Act 2010 covers you if dyslexia has a "substantial" effect on your daily life. You do not need a formal diagnosis for that duty to start. An employer who knows, or reasonably should know, about your dyslexia already has to act.

Dr Clark had a formal diagnosis, and that alone still wasn't enough to win the case. What won it was the paper trail built after things went wrong. That's the part any dyslexic employee can start today, diagnosed or not.

So what for you: don't wait for a diagnosis, or for your employer to ask, before you start writing things down.

How £96,128 stacks up

UK tribunal awards have no upper limit. The US is different. There, the Americans with Disabilities Act caps payouts by company size, from $50,000 to $300,000.

FEAT's £96,128 is a mid-size award by UK standards. Lloyds Banking Group paid a dyslexic manager £470,000 in 2024 over comments made under pressure. A dyslexic chef won £24,005.63 from Greene King in 2025 over a refused earpiece.

An award size tracks lost pay, injury to feelings, and how badly the employer behaved. It isn't only about whether discrimination happened at all.

Made-up claims and zero process pushed FEAT's bill well above a simple refused-adjustment case.

So what for you: bad conduct raises the price. Keep a record of how you were treated, not just what you were refused.

Where the £96,128 came from

The tribunal split the award two ways. Dr Clark received £58,401. Ms Goble received £37,727.

UK awards like this usually cover several things at once. That includes lost pay, injury to feelings, and extra money when an employer's conduct was especially bad.

Ms Goble's award also covers wages FEAT should have paid her, plus missed notice pay, on top of the discrimination itself.

Two separate people, two separate awards, one shared cause. Both women were harmed by the same pattern of false claims and no process.

So what for you: if more than one thing went wrong, each one can add to your total claim. List every harm separately, not just the main one.

Three things to do this week

Three steps protect you if something similar starts happening to you. None of them need a lawyer, and none of them need your employer's permission to start.

• Write a same-day note. Cover any shifting story, new claim, or broken equipment. Date it, and keep a copy outside your work email.
• Ask for a written needs assessment. Name the exact task that's affected. Our reasonable adjustments builder turns your notes into a formal request in a couple of minutes.
• Check what funded help you're owed. Our Access to Work calculator gives you a fast estimate, whether or not you trust your employer to raise it first.

What this means for you

FEAT's own mission was helping disabled people into work. That mission didn't stop it making up claims about two of its own disabled staff. A caring mission statement is not proof of fair treatment.

Don't wait to see if a bad pattern blows over. Write things down the day they happen. Ask for adjustments and assessments in writing, every time.

If a live dispute is already underway for you, this article is a starting point, not the finish line. Get advice early, while there's still time to gather evidence and meet any deadlines.

So what for you: the next time something at work feels off, write it down today. That's the one thing FEAT's staff had that FEAT itself didn't.