Dyslexia interview adjustments: Bryce v Coventry, EAT 2026

A dyslexic applicant scored 24 points at a Coventry City Council interview. The two people hired scored 51 and 61 (Bryce v Coventry City Council [2026] EAT 153, 9 October 2026). The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has now ruled on his dyslexia interview adjustments, and the result is split.

The council won on the adjustments it gave. Mr Bryce won on stress, and a new tribunal will look at that claim again. He has not won his case.

The short version: the adjustments were enough. But an interviewer's guess that he looked confident could not show he was not stressed.

What the council agreed to do

Mr Bryce applied for a team manager job in revenue services. He has Asperger's Syndrome (the judgment's term, now usually called autism) and dyslexia. The council did not dispute either condition, and it knew about both (paras 6 and 8).

He phoned the recruitment team on 24 January 2022 to say so. The next day he talked through adjustments with a council officer (paras 18 and 19). The interview was a presentation, then seven questions on the person specification.

The council agreed to three things:

• The last slot of the day, 4 February 2022, so the interview could overrun.
• Prompting: if he seemed not to understand a question, the interviewer would ask it another way.
• The seven questions sent 20 minutes before the interview. That was the lead time he asked for, and they arrived 24 minutes before (paras 20 and 21).

At the start of the interview he asked for two more things. He wanted reminders of the parts of a two-part question, and a refocus if he seemed lost. The tribunal found both were done (para 21).

A good request names the lead time, the format and the prompt you need. That is what the employer must deliver, and what a tribunal can check.

Why the reasonable adjustments claim failed

The tribunal agreed that the time limit put him at a significant disadvantage. He found it hard to give examples of his skills "on the spot, immediately and in the moment" (para 58). So the council had a duty to make reasonable adjustments.

But the council had already acted. The tribunal also found that he never told the interviewers the preparation time was a problem. One interviewer said he would have asked HR for guidance. That was if Mr Bryce had wanted more than 24 minutes (para 86 of the reasons, quoted at para 21).

The tribunal put it bluntly: "If the claimant felt he was rushing he could have asked for extra time. He did not do so" (para 99 of its reasons, quoted at para 28 of the EAT judgment).

Mr Bryce also wanted closed questions. The tribunal found all seven already were closed, under National Autistic Society guidance. One example was: "What is your approach to dealing with conflicting priorities? Can you give an example?" Here, closed means a specific question about past experience.

His own version was yes or no questions only. The EAT refused that. It called it "a significant over-correction". His problem was giving examples at speed. He could give them. The EAT added: "Adjustments which deprive an assessment method of any efficacy cannot be reasonable adjustments" (para 63).

Ask for the change that fixes your real barrier. If it is not working, say so in the room. The tribunal leaned on the fact that he never asked for more time.

The tribunal also got the law wrong

The tribunal said the council could take his requests "at face value". The EAT replied: "That of course does not reflect the law" (para 59).

This matters to you. What you ask for tells the employer how big your disadvantage is. It does not cap what the employer must consider. You also do not have to name the right adjustment yourself (para 36).

The tribunal made a second slip. It said the form of the questions had nothing to do with his disadvantage. The EAT disagreed. The type of question "could self-evidently influence the speed" of an answer (judgment summary). That error did not change the result.

One detail is useful. Look at how the judge ran her own hearing. Mr Bryce joined by video, with a break of about 10 minutes every half hour. When she had questions, she put them in writing. He took a break, then answered in writing. It "appeared to work well" (para 3).

If a live question-and-answer format loses you, ask for the questions in writing and a short break before you reply.

Why "he seemed calm" was thrown out

Mr Bryce also claimed discrimination arising from disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010. One "something" he relied on was stress in new situations, such as job interviews (para 15). Not getting the job was the unfavourable treatment.

The tribunal sided with the interviewer, who said Mr Bryce seemed quite confident. His reasons were that Mr Bryce explained his adjustments at the start and declined to share his screen when asked. In the interviewer's view, a stressed person might have shared it (para 123 of the reasons, quoted at para 30).

The EAT said that rested on how neurotypical people behave. The tribunal had also preferred the interviewer's view of Mr Bryce's mental state over his own account. The EAT said: "In my judgment that was not a finding open to the Tribunal" (para 76).

Law firm Lewis Silkin made the same point on 23 October 2026. Calm on the outside does not show that someone is not stressed.

The EAT sent that claim to a new tribunal. It must decide how stressed he was. It must decide whether stress helped cost him the job. If so, it must decide whether the council was justified (paras 83 and 85). None of that is settled yet.

Explain in writing how stress shows up for you. An interviewer's read of your face should not settle it.

One claim he lost for a pleading gap

Mr Bryce had one more argument. He said he was turned down because he lacked good examples of skills such as communication and empathy. He said that gap came from his disabilities. The EAT dismissed this point (paras 81 and 82).

The reason was simple. He had not put it forward in the tribunal, so the council never had to answer it. The EAT would not let him run "a wholly new case" on appeal (para 81).

If you bring a claim, list every effect of dyslexia you rely on at the start. You cannot add new ones on appeal.

What to do before your next interview

If you are job hunting in the UK, ask for the questions in advance and set the lead time yourself. Mr Bryce's 20 minutes held up. Ask for what you can use. If your ask stops the interview from testing you at all, expect a no.

Lewis Silkin advises employers to ask every candidate about adjustments (23 October 2026). It also suggests sending questions in advance to everyone. So your request is normal.

Here is a plan you can use this week:

1. Write to the employer after you are invited. Say which task is hard, how it affects you and what change you want. The reasonable adjustments builder turns your challenges into a draft email in about two minutes.
2. Repeat the key points to the interviewers at the start. Mr Bryce did, and the tribunal found they were carried out.
3. If the time is not enough, say so during the interview. A short line works, such as "I need a few more minutes on this one."
4. Write down how stress shows up for you, and send it with your request. Say that you may look calm.
5. Keep dated copies of everything. If an employer refuses, the notes show what you asked for and when.

You may not know yet whether dyslexia explains your struggles. The dyslexia assessment cost guide shows what a report costs in the UK and US in 2026. If you are still deciding what to tell an employer, read the disclosure decision guide.

Put your request in an email before the interview. A dated email is the evidence a tribunal wants to see.

If you are in the US

This case is UK law, under the Equality Act 2010. That Act says "reasonable adjustments". It does not apply to you. US law says "reasonable accommodations", under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

For a US interview, ask the employer in writing. The Job Accommodation Network (JAN) gives free guidance. The EEOC handles complaints, and it has strict time limits, so check them before you wait.

In the UK, if an employer refuses a fair request, ACAS early conciliation comes first. Time limits apply, so do not sit on it.

Use the right country's words in your request, because the employer will look for them.