Rejected after disclosing dyslexia: what counts as evidence

The EEOC recorded 1,345 discrimination charges about learning disabilities in one year (EEOC, FY2023 data, reported January 2024). Many start the same way. A candidate discloses dyslexia.

Then comes a rejection, with no real reason given. This article explains what counts as evidence, in the UK and the US.

What the law actually restricts before a job offer

In the UK, the law limits what an employer can ask before a job offer. Section 60 of the Equality Act 2010 blocks health questions before that point. There are only three exceptions (Equality Act 2010, checked September 2026).

• To plan a fair assessment.
• To work out adjustments for the interview itself.
• To check you can do one specific, core task.

In the US, the rule sits inside the ADA. Section 12112(d) bans medical exams and disability questions before a conditional offer (42 U.S.C. §12112(d), checked September 2026). After a conditional offer, an employer can ask health questions. But it must ask every new hire in that role the same thing.

Say you were asked about your dyslexia before any offer, in the UK or the US. That question alone may have broken the law, whatever reason the employer gives for the rejection.

Why a rejection alone isn't proof

Getting turned down after you disclose dyslexia isn't proof of discrimination by itself. Employers reject people for real reasons every day.

A stronger candidate. A skills gap. A reference that didn't check out.

UK law has a specific tool for this exact problem. Section 136 of the Equality Act 2010 covers the burden of proof (Equality Act 2010, checked September 2026).

Once you show facts that could point to discrimination, the burden shifts. One example is an unlawful health question. The employer must then prove the rejection wasn't discrimination.

US claims work differently, but land in a similar place. First, you show you were qualified. Then you show you were rejected.

Someone without a disability got the role instead. At that point, the employer must give a real, job-related reason. You then get the chance to show that reason was invented after the fact.

One unlawful question in the UK can flip who has to do the explaining. In the US, the employer's reason has to survive scrutiny. It can't just sound plausible.

A worked example

Say a recruiter asks about "any health conditions we should know about" before an offer. You mention dyslexia. Two days later, you get a generic rejection with no specific reason.

In the UK, that health question alone is likely a Section 60 breach. The burden now sits with the employer to explain the rejection. In the US, the timing plus the vague reason are worth a call to an employment lawyer.

When an algorithm is the real gatekeeper

Online applications increasingly get screened by software first. A person may never read your application at all. A federal judge let disability and age discrimination claims move forward in June 2026.

The claims target Workday's AI hiring tool. The case covers an estimated 1.1 billion job applications (Judge Rita F. Lin, N.D. Cal., June 2026).

One claim in that case is specific. The tool allegedly used gaps in a candidate's work history as a stand-in for disability. Online tests, resume scanners, and personality quizzes can all work against dyslexia-linked traits.

Slower reading speed and inconsistent spelling are two examples. None of them ever ask a health question directly.

The EEOC deleted its guidance on AI hiring tools and disability discrimination in January 2025. The page still returned a 404 error when checked again in March 2026 (Bloomberg Law; National Law Review).

The underlying law didn't change. Only the guidance explaining it disappeared.

Say you were rejected right after an online test or an automated screening step. Ask what that tool measured. That's where a hidden dyslexia penalty is most likely to hide.

What actually triggers a finding, in real cases

CPG Staffing and Executive Personnel Group paid $60,000 in March 2025. They had rescinded a welding job offer.

A post-offer medical form had found an old knee injury. That injury had nothing to do with the work (EEOC press release, March 2025).

Golding Barge Line was sued by the EEOC in June 2026. It had rescinded an offer over a pre-employment colour vision test. Colour vision wasn't actually required for the role (EEOC press release, June 2026).

Neither case involved dyslexia. But the pattern is the same. A health check with no link to the real job.

Ask yourself one question. Does the reason for your rejection relate to a task in the job you applied for? If it doesn't, that gap is worth writing down.

If a recruitment agency rejected you

The same protections apply if a recruiter turned you down, not just a direct employer. Section 55 of the Equality Act 2010 covers employment agencies (Equality Act 2010, checked September 2026). It bans discrimination in how they choose who to put forward.

In the US, the ADA lists employment agencies as covered on their own (42 U.S.C. §12111, checked September 2026). An agency can be liable even if the employer itself never sees your application.

Don't assume a recruiter is a neutral middleman. Perhaps they asked a health question, or dropped you right after you disclosed. The same evidence rules apply to them too.

What to write down today

Evidence fades fast. Write down the exact date and wording of any health question, and who asked it. Do this the same day, not weeks later.

Save the rejection message exactly as it arrived, screenshot included. If the rejection came by phone, write down what was said within the hour.

Five things build the strongest file.

• The exact date and wording of any health question, and who asked it.
• A screenshot or copy of the rejection message, kept exactly as sent.
• The job advert and person specification, saved before it can be edited or removed.
• Names of anyone else present at the interview or on the call.
• Any online test or automated screening step you completed, and roughly when.

Deciding when to disclose in the first place shapes how strong this evidence trail can be. The disclosure guide gives you a timing recommendation in about two minutes. The disclosure decision guide covers the reasoning behind it in more depth.

A dated note written the same day carries more weight. A detailed memory written a month later carries less.

What happens after you file

In the UK, you can't go straight to a tribunal. ACAS early conciliation comes first, and it's free. For cases notified from 1 December 2025, it can run up to 12 weeks (Acas, checked September 2026).

Starting early conciliation pauses your three-month clock while it runs. Most cases settle here, without ever reaching a tribunal hearing.

In the US, an EEOC charge takes longer. The average investigation runs about 10 months, though complex cases take longer still (EEOC, checked September 2026). After 180 days, you can ask for a "right to sue" letter.

That lets you take the case to court yourself. Once you get that letter, you have 90 days to file.

Filing isn't the finish line in either country. Expect weeks of conciliation in the UK, or months of waiting in the US. Plan your next job search around that timeline, not against it.

What this means for you

If you were asked a health question before any offer, write down what happened today. This matters even more if the rejection followed within days. Then read the ADA accommodations guide. Or contact ACAS or an employment solicitor to check your timing.

If nothing was asked before the offer, the odds run the other way. This holds even more if the reason given is specific and tied to one real task.

It's unlikely to be worth pursuing as a formal claim. Still, it's worth noting for your own records.

Either way, the clock is short. A UK tribunal claim is due within three months less one day of the rejection. A US EEOC charge is due within 180 days. That extends to 300 days in states with their own fair employment agency (ACAS; EEOC, checked September 2026).

Decide within the first few weeks, not the last few days. The clock doesn't pause while you think it over.