Dragon provided, employer still lost: Debont won 3 of 7 claims

Seven outcomes are listed on the first page of Debont v Marsh Farm Futures (Bury St Edmunds Employment Tribunal, judgment signed 31 October 2023). Three went the claimant's way: unfair dismissal in full, plus discrimination arising from disability and harassment, each in part. Four failed.

The employer had given Robert Debont, a dyslexic facilities manager, Dragon dictation software and colleagues to proofread his work (paragraph 56). A common belief says that settles it: adjustments in place means no case. The tribunal disagreed.

The judgment also corrects two lazy summaries of the case. The claimant won some of it and lost some of it, and the split is the useful part.

What the tribunal actually decided

Mr Debont worked for the charity from 16 November 2015 to 27 October 2021. At a board meeting on 29 March 2021, Mohammed Rafi, described by HR Magazine as the charity's chief executive, criticised his policy documents in front of the board. Mr Rafi followed it with an email on 13 May 2021.

The tribunal found both acts were unfavourable treatment because of something arising from dyslexia (paragraph 171). It also found the treatment wasn't a proportionate way to reach a legitimate aim, because it had "little, or no evidence" that the policies had failed in the way Mr Rafi said (paragraph 173). Those same two acts were harassment under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 (paragraph 180).

Four other complaints about specific acts failed. Asking for written clarification was found reasonable, and the tribunal found that the removal of his email access came from the decision to dismiss him, not from his dyslexia (paragraph 170).

Criticising a dyslexic person's writing in front of a board, without evidence for the criticism, can be unlawful even when you've provided software.

Why the adjustments claim failed

This is the part most summaries skip. The tribunal accepted that Dragon and colleague proofreading were in place (paragraph 56). Mr Debont had chosen not to use Dragon because it was hard to operate in an open-plan office.

The judgment says there was no evidence he raised this with his employer or tried to improve the set-up (paragraphs 177 and 178). The respondents, in the tribunal's words, were "seemingly" not to know. The reasonable adjustments claim under sections 20 and 21 failed.

Think about how that looks from the employer's side of the desk. An adjustment that sits unused, in silence, looks like an adjustment that works. A quiet employee and a satisfied employee look identical.

The gap sat in the paper trail. Nobody had written down that the software didn't suit the room he worked in, so nobody could be held to fix it.

If an adjustment isn't working, tell someone with authority in writing, with the reason, and ask for a specific change.

Why the indirect discrimination claim was thrown out

The section 19 claim fared worst. The tribunal called it "misconceived" because no provision, criterion or practice had been cited (paragraph 159).

Indirect discrimination is about a rule or practice that applies to everybody and puts dyslexic people at a particular disadvantage. A single manager's criticism of one person at one meeting doesn't fit that shape. The same facts did succeed under the other two headings, which shows how much the legal label matters.

Most dyslexic employees will never need to plead a legal claim. If you do, you don't need to choose the label yourself. An ACAS adviser or an employment solicitor can do that, and ACAS early conciliation has to be tried before most claims go to a tribunal. The usual time limit is three months less one day from the act complained of (gov.uk), though early conciliation can extend it.

The same facts can win under one section and fail under another, so get advice on the framing before you file.

The dismissal: a redundancy that turned into discipline

The unfair dismissal claim succeeded in full. The tribunal found that Mr Rafi had decided to dismiss Mr Debont by May 2021, and that the redundancy process was a device or a sham (paragraphs 90, 91 and 125). HR Magazine reports that the tribunal called the switch to disciplinary proceedings "suspicious in the extreme".

Whistleblowing claims under sections 47B and 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 failed. So did a health and safety dismissal claim under section 100.

The tribunal found the process unfair. It made no finding that dyslexia caused the dismissal, and those are different findings with different consequences. Mixing them up is how a single case turns into a myth.

Winning on unfair dismissal and losing on disability discrimination is a real, common split, and it changes what a case is worth.

What nobody can tell you yet

The judgment orders a separate one-day remedy hearing at Bury St Edmunds to decide compensation (paragraph 188). It contains no award figure. HR Magazine's report says compensation would be decided at a later date.

I found no published remedy figure for this case. If you see a pound amount attached to Debont on social media or in a forum, it isn't from this judgment.

The tribunal also said it may consider reducing compensation to reflect Mr Debont's own part in the breakdown of the relationship (paragraphs 185 and 186). Even a win can come with a discount, and the size of it isn't known yet.

Treat any figure attached to this case as unverified until a remedy judgment is published.

The wider point holds even if you never go near a tribunal. Employers act on what is written down and what they were told. Your experience of a bad tool or a hostile meeting counts for much less until it exists on paper, with a date.

The call: four moves from a judgment you can use

Here is what the evidence implies. This is UK law under the Equality Act 2010; US rules under the ADA differ, so check with the EEOC or JAN if you're in the States.

First, report a failing adjustment in writing the week you notice it. Say what goes wrong and what you'd like changed. In Debont, the missing message was the difference between a failed claim and a possible one.

Second, keep dated copies of any criticism of your written work, including the email and your own notes of what was said. Ask what standard is being applied and who has checked the work against it. Paragraph 173 shows what happens when an employer can't produce that evidence.

Third, don't let a quiet adjustment look like a working one. If your job involves open-plan noise, a screen reader that clashes with your software or a tool you can't use in meetings, say so. The disclosure guide covers how much to say and to whom.

Fourth, if the tool itself needs replacing, the Access to Work calculator shows what funding might cover, and the article archive has recent pieces on how long applications take.

An adjustment in your file proves your employer tried; a dated message about it failing proves they were told.

The short version

Debont won three of seven outcomes: unfair dismissal in full, and discrimination arising from disability and harassment in part. He lost on reasonable adjustments because the tribunal found no evidence he told his employer Dragon wasn't working in an open-plan office.

Provided adjustments don't make criticism of your writing lawful, and they don't make a silent failure the employer's fault. Tell someone in writing, keep copies, and get ACAS advice early.