Debont, Young, Rashid: 7 dyslexia tribunal questions answered

Three UK tribunal documents have come up on this site in the past week, and together they answer seven questions dyslexic employees keep asking. In Debont v Marsh Farm Futures (Bury St Edmunds Employment Tribunal, judgment signed 31 October 2023), the claimant won 3 of 7 listed outcomes. Here are the seven answers, with paragraph numbers where the judgments give them.

All three cases are UK, decided under the Equality Act 2010. US readers get a short section near the end.

1. Does having adjustments in place end the case?

No. The employer in Debont had given Robert Debont, a dyslexic facilities manager, Dragon dictation software and colleagues to proofread his work (paragraph 56). He still won unfair dismissal in full, plus discrimination arising from disability and harassment, each in part.

The two acts behind those wins were a board-meeting criticism of his policy documents on 29 March 2021 and a follow-up email on 13 May 2021. The tribunal found there was "little, or no evidence" that his policies had failed as claimed (paragraph 173).

Software and a proofreader show an employer tried, and they don't make criticism of your writing lawful.

2. Why did the reasonable adjustments claim fail?

Because nobody had been told the adjustment wasn't working. Mr Debont chose not to use Dragon in an open-plan office. The judgment says there was no evidence he raised that with his employer or tried to improve the set-up (paragraphs 177 and 178).

From the employer's side, an unused tool in silence looks like a tool that works. A quiet employee and a satisfied one look the same.

If an adjustment fails, say so in writing, give the reason and ask for one specific change.

3. Can criticism of my writing be unlawful?

Yes, when the criticism has no evidence behind it. The tribunal found both the board criticism and the follow-up email 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.

Those same two acts were harassment under section 26 (paragraph 180). Other complaints failed: asking for written clarification was found reasonable, and the removal of his email access followed from the decision to dismiss him.

No remedy figure has been published for Debont. The judgment orders a separate one-day hearing on compensation (paragraph 188), so any pound amount you see attached to the case online isn't from this document.

Keep dated copies of any criticism of your written work, and ask what standard was applied and who checked it.

4. What did the judge in Young actually decide?

One preliminary point. On 22 July 2026, an employment judge ruled that Mr M Young was disabled by dyslexia at all material times, and that his dyslexia includes cognitive weakness in working memory and processing speed (case 6008214/2025, Employment Judge Dawson, sent to the parties on 14 August 2026).

The judgment doesn't say what he claimed, what his job was or who is likely to win. It is a first-instance ruling, so other tribunals aren't bound by it. Treat it as a model for wording and nothing more.

Read Young as a template for describing effects, because it tells you nothing about outcomes.

5. What should I write down about my own dyslexia?

Effects on tasks, in the form task, effect, change. Working memory and processing speed are the two the judge named, and both show up in meetings and inboxes long before they show up in a spelling test.

Try: "In meetings I can't hold several action points while someone is still talking. Please send the agenda a day ahead and confirm actions in writing afterwards." Or: "Long documents take me noticeably longer to read. Please send them a day before the meeting."

Email it, date it and keep the sent copy.

Under Schedule 8, paragraph 20 of the Equality Act, the duty to adjust doesn't apply if the employer didn't know, and couldn't reasonably be expected to know, about your disability. A written description closes that gap. The disclosure guide covers who to tell first.

Two sentences per effect is enough, and a dated email is your proof of what they knew.

6. What if my grade changes in a meeting with no minutes?

Ask about the process before you argue about the score. In Rashid v Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (Manchester, case 2424622/2017, judgment signed 14 January 2019), a project officer was marked satisfactory on 12 May 2017. At a moderation meeting in June 2017 the grade became "needing improvement".

The meeting had no minutes and the spreadsheet is missing (paragraphs 40 to 46 and 96).

The tribunal found direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments, all well founded. It held the downgrade wasn't proportionate and that the employer should have extended her fixed-term contract until it could assess her fairly with adjustments in place (paragraph 128).

A workable message runs to three questions: what changed, who decided, and what evidence was used. Add a request for any meeting notes and a fixed re-review date. Three months is our suggestion, not a legal rule.

One calm written message with three process questions beats a debate about quality you can't see the evidence for.

7. Does my employer's duty wait for Access to Work?

No. In Rashid, interim measures arrived in July 2017, which the tribunal called seven months too late.

The Access to Work assessment reached the employer on 21 August 2017, ten days before her contract ended. It recommended 12 adjustments costed at £3,700, with the scheme offering to pay two-thirds (paragraphs 65, 108 and 117).

Access to Work processing averaged 100.5 days in June 2026 (House of Commons Library). The Access to Work calculator shows what you could ask for while your employer sorts out the cheap changes, such as earlier papers and a second reader.

Ask your employer for the low-cost changes now and run the Access to Work application alongside.

The call

This week, send one email to your manager or HR.

Name one task, the effect on it, and one change (question 5). If an adjustment you already have isn't working, put that in the same email with the reason (question 2). Keep the sent copy.

If a grade or a criticism has already landed, add the three process questions from question 6. Save the grade screens and every reply.

If nothing moves, ACAS early conciliation is free, and the usual tribunal time limit is three months less one day from the act complained of (gov.uk), with conciliation pausing the clock.

If you work in the US

None of these cases applies to you.

The ADA lists reading, learning, concentrating and thinking among the major life activities (42 U.S.C. section 12102). Describe the effects, ask for one named accommodation in writing and keep the reply.

The EEOC charge deadline is 180 or 300 days from the event, depending on the state. The EEOC and the Job Accommodation Network (askjan.org) both give free guidance. More tribunal write-ups are in the articles library.

The habit carries across the Atlantic, and the law doesn't, so keep UK section numbers out of a US conversation.