Rated satisfactory, then downgraded in a meeting with no minutes

A dyslexic project officer was rated satisfactory in May 2017, then downgraded in a June meeting that nobody minuted (Employment Tribunal, Manchester, Rashid v Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, case 2424622/2017, judgment signed 14 January 2019). The tribunal found her employer should have kept her grade and extended her contract until it could assess her fairly. Many employers moderate grades in a separate meeting, and the higher you climb the more your review leans on written reports.

What happened in Rashid

She started on 5 December 2016 on a four-month fixed-term contract, later extended by five months to 31 August 2017. She declared her dyslexia on her pre-employment health form and told her line manager on 10 January 2017. An occupational health certificate recommended adjustments, and the employer did not act on it.

On 12 May 2017 her line manager marked her satisfactory. At a moderation meeting in June 2017, her grade became "needing improvement". The meeting had no minutes, and the spreadsheet from it is missing (judgment paras 40 to 46 and 96).

She was told the outcome afterwards (para 57). Nobody could later show her how the decision was reached.

So what for you: a grade that changes after you've left the room is a decision you're allowed to ask about.

What the tribunal decided

The tribunal found three claims well founded under the Equality Act 2010: direct disability discrimination (section 13), discrimination arising from disability (section 15) and failure to make reasonable adjustments (section 20). It held the downgrade was not proportionate. It also found the employer should have kept her satisfactory grade.

The adjustments came late. Interim measures arrived in July 2017, which the tribunal described as seven months too late. The Access to Work assessment reached the employer on 21 August 2017, ten days before her contract ended, and recommended 12 adjustments costed at £3,700, with the scheme offering to pay two-thirds (judgment paras 65, 108 and 117).

The employer accepted it knew or should have known about her disability from December 2016. The tribunal said it should have extended her fixed-term contract until her work could be fairly judged with adjustments in place (para 128).

So what for you: the clock on your employer's duty starts when they know, and a late assessment doesn't pause it.

The scenario: the portal says something new

You're six months into a bigger role. Your one-to-one in the spring ended with "solid". Now the review portal shows "needs improvement", with a note that says "moderated".

The natural move is to argue about the score. That puts you in a debate about quality, where you can't see the evidence. Ask about the process first.

Use your own words, but here is a version:

"Thanks for the update. In May you rated me satisfactory, and the portal now shows a different grade. Could you tell me what changed, who made the decision and what evidence was used? I'd also like a copy of any notes from the meeting."

If your employer already knows about your dyslexia, add a second line: "I'd like the review to take account of the adjustments I asked for in [month], which weren't in place until [month]." If they don't know yet, read the disclosure guide before you send it.

So what for you: send one calm message with three process questions, and keep the reply.

Ask for the adjustments in the same message

In the UK, section 20 and Schedule 8 of the Equality Act 2010 require reasonable adjustments once your employer knows, or should reasonably know, about your disability. That duty doesn't depend on Access to Work. In Rashid, the Access to Work report was a bonus that arrived too late, and the tribunal still found the employer at fault.

Access to Work processing averaged 100.5 days in June 2026 (House of Commons Library). The Access to Work calculator shows what funding you could ask for while your employer sorts out the cheap changes.

Rashid's problem was a requirement to produce reports to a template. At director level the equivalent is board papers and performance reports. Four changes to consider:

• Earlier drafts. Papers are due a few days earlier, so a second read-aloud pass fits in before the deadline.
• Read-aloud software. Text-to-speech on long documents, checked against your employer's IT policy.
• Delegated first draft or proofread. A colleague produces the minutes or checks the final copy.
• Written criteria. What a good report looks like, in one page, before the review period starts.

So what for you: ask for the changes that would have prevented the thing you're being marked down for.

Ask for a fair test period

The tribunal said the employer should have given her more time, then judged her work with adjustments in place. You can ask for the same: "Could my review be re-run after the adjustments have been in place for a fixed period?" Three months is our suggestion, not a legal rule.

Keep dated copies of your work from the period in question. Save the grade screens and every email about them. If the meeting had notes, ask for them; if it didn't, put that fact in writing as well.

A good reply gives you reasons and a date. A vague reply, or silence for two weeks, tells you the process is the problem, and your follow-up should say so politely: "I haven't had an answer to my question about the process, so I'm asking again."

If nothing moves, the written trail is what ACAS and a solicitor will ask to see first.

So what for you: a fixed re-review date turns a vague grievance into a request your employer can say yes to.

What this case can't tell you

It's a first-instance tribunal decision, so other tribunals aren't bound by it. The facts also differ from yours: she was a junior employee on a fixed-term contract, and the decision is from 2019. The judgment text we reviewed doesn't state an award.

The case also says nothing about whether the grade itself was accurate. The finding was about how the employer treated a dyslexic employee whose adjustments were missing.

It's one worked example of how a UK tribunal treats a late adjustment followed by a downgrade. That's useful for deciding what to ask, and it doesn't predict your outcome. For a live dispute, get advice from ACAS or an employment solicitor.

Thrive Law's July 2026 summary of the case is why it's back in the conversation, and the original judgment is on GOV.UK.

So what for you: use Rashid to shape your questions, and don't quote it as a promise.

What this means for you

If a grade changes in a meeting you weren't part of, ask what changed, who decided and what evidence was used. Put your adjustment request in the same message, ask for a fixed re-review date and keep every reply. The call: write the message this week, before the next review cycle makes the grade harder to move.

This article covers UK law. In the US, ask in writing for an accommodation under the ADA, keep the dated reply, and check the EEOC's filing deadlines (180 or 300 days from the event, depending on the state) before you wait for a response.

So what for you: five minutes on one written message now is cheaper than a year of unexplained grades.