What happened?
Mr Johnston, who has dyslexia, applied for a permanent role at the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) after doing the job successfully for two years as a temp. But during the application process, a numeracy test with complex written language became a barrier.
Mr Johnston requested adjustments to the test to accommodate his dyslexia, including reducing or removing the written language component, NISRA offered adjustments such as extra time, an individual testing environment, and a reader, but refused to provide an alternative ‘word-light’ test or waive the test entirely. Mr Johnston did not accept these adjustments, and his application did not proceed. He claimed disability discrimination.
What did the tribunal say?
NISRA failed to make reasonable adjustments. Despite Johnston’s track record and clear numeracy skills, the tribunal ruled that sticking to a word-heavy test unfairly disadvantaged him and this constituted unlawful disability discrimination.
Why?
Mr Johnston’s dyslexia placed him at a substantial disadvantage owing to the linguistic complexity of the numeracy test and the time constraints. Despite his proven proficiency in numeracy, demonstrated by his successful performance in the role without adjustments for over two years, he had previously failed the test with the same adjustments offered.
The adjustments provided by NISRA did not effectively address the disadvantage caused by the language component of the test. A more effective adjustment, such as a ‘word-light’ test, was available and reasonable.
The tribunal rejected NISRA’s argument for a consistent assessment approach, stating that Mr Johnston’s dyslexia warranted a flexible approach to assessment. NISRA had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for ruling out this option.
The tribunal said ‘The respondent is a large employer, with the benefit of a dedicated HR service and detailed recruitment policies and procedures which provided ample guidance on the question of reasonable adjustments. It also had the benefit of a specialist advisor on this important issue. The tribunal regards these factors to be significant.’
The takeaway:
- You must make reasonable adjustments to your selection processes if a candidate is at a significant disadvantage owing to a disability.
- Adjustments must be meaningful and you must consider alternatives that may be more effective in addressing the disadvantage. A “tick-box” approach won’t cut it.
- Be flexible. Consistency doesn’t override fairness for disabled candidates.
- Relevance is key. Make sure your assessments actually reflect the role.