Dyslexic claimant not disabled: Pitcher tribunal, Jan 2026

A UK tribunal ruled on 20 January 2026 that a claimant who said she was dyslexic was not disabled. The judge saw no medical evidence of dyslexia. Her disability claims were dismissed (Pitcher v Veterinary Business Development Ltd, 6010226/2025).

If you have ever told HR you are "a bit dyslexic", read on. This dyslexia disability ruling shows what a tribunal looked for, and what was missing.

What the tribunal decided

The claimant worked for the firm from June 2023 to December 2024. She said she had dyslexia, ADHD and epilepsy. She said she told the firm about all three when she was hired (judgment, paras 1 and 26).

The judge had to decide if she was disabled by law at the time. The answer was no, for all three conditions. Her two disability discrimination claims were dismissed (judgment, 20 January 2026).

She also made a pregnancy and maternity claim. She withdrew it. Disability is the first gate: if you fail it, the tribunal never asks how your employer treated you.

Before any argument about what your employer did, you must show your dyslexia meets the legal test for disability.

What the judge weighed on dyslexia

The firm said it needed medical evidence or an assessment record. It said her job was "inherently text-intensive and requires advanced literary skills". So her output, it argued, showed no big effect (judgment, para 27.1).

She said a school assessment found dyslexia and she got extra exam time. She said the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons also gave her more time. She said dyslexia slowed her reading and writing. She broke tasks into parts, used spellcheck and asked for help (para 26).

The judge did not doubt she may once have been told she was dyslexic. But there was no evidence that it met the legal test. Several things made her case hard to accept:

• Her job meant reviewing and writing a lot of text. The company thought she did it well.
• She also did locum vet work. She agreed she worked more than full-time hours.
• After leaving, she launched her own veterinary magazine.
• There was no formal assessment and no educational psychologist's report.
• In the redundancy process she called herself "slightly dyslexic" (para 27.1).

Your own words count as evidence. So does your work output. Watch how you describe your dyslexia in writing.

The test dyslexic employees must meet

You are disabled under the Equality Act 2010 if you have a physical or mental impairment. It must have a substantial, long-term, negative effect on daily activities. GOV.UK says "substantial" means more than minor or trivial. "Long-term" means 12 months or more (GOV.UK, checked November 2026).

The claimant must prove it. The judgment says the burden of proof is on her (para 4). It also quotes official guidance that lists reading and writing as normal daily activities (para 9).

Two more points matter to you. You can do a task with difficulty and still be substantially affected. The focus is on what you cannot do, or do only with difficulty (para 6). The guidance also says the time a task takes can show a substantial effect. So can the way you do it (para 12).

The judgment says the effect of an adjustment should be ignored (para 13). In plain terms, the test looks at your dyslexia without your workarounds. Yet her strong output still counted against her. That is my reading, and another judge could weigh the same facts differently.

Describe how dyslexia affects you without your workarounds, because that is what the test measures.

Do you need a dyslexia diagnosis to claim?

No, but the picture is mixed. The judgment quotes the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) Code of Practice on Employment. You do not need to show a medically diagnosed cause. What counts is the effect, not the cause (para 22).

Still, she had to prove that effect, and she had little to show. The same judge dismissed her ADHD claim. There was no assessment, no diagnosis and too little evidence of daily impact (para 27.2). Her epilepsy claim failed too, because the documents held no diagnosis (para 27.3).

Acas guidance says employers must make reasonable adjustments if they know someone is disabled. It also applies if they could reasonably be expected to know (Acas, updated 30 January 2025). That duty covers disabled people, so the legal test matters again.

A diagnosis is not a legal must, but an assessment report is the strongest proof of effect you can hold.

What to do before you need the evidence

If you are dyslexic and work in the UK, build your record before any dispute starts. Here is the call from this case, in four steps:

1. Get an assessment report if you do not have one. The dyslexia assessment cost guide shows UK prices.
2. Keep dated notes of what dyslexia costs you: extra hours on a report, errors caught late, tasks you avoid.
3. Describe your dyslexia accurately in writing. Say what happens without your workarounds. Avoid "slightly" unless it is true.
4. Ask for adjustments in writing and keep the replies. A dated email shows when your employer knew.

Re-reading every email before you send it is unpaid work. The masking cost calculator puts a number on it. Enter your salary and your workarounds, and it tells you what that time costs per year.

Many dyslexic employees never ask for adjustments because they do not know how to start. The reasonable adjustments builder turns your specific challenges into a conversation plan and a draft email, in about two minutes.

Dated notes and an assessment report turn "trust me" into evidence a tribunal can weigh.

How far this ruling goes

This is one tribunal judgment, decided on its own facts. The claimant spoke for herself. The company had a barrister (judgment, p. 1). It was sent to the parties on 13 February 2026 and published on GOV.UK on 2 March 2026.

It does not change the law. It shows how the test works when the evidence is thin. Every case turns on its own evidence, and yours may be stronger or weaker than hers. If you have a live dispute, speak to Acas or an employment solicitor before you rely on one case.

Use this case as a checklist for your own evidence, not as a forecast of your outcome.

If you are in the US

This is UK law. The Equality Act 2010 does not apply in the US. US law says "reasonable accommodations" and sits under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA has its own definition of disability, so do not assume the UK test carries over.

The ADA accommodations guide covers the US route. For a live problem, start with the EEOC or the Job Accommodation Network (JAN).

Use your own country's terms, and check which law covers your job before you rely on a UK ruling.