Employment Appeal Tribunal

Published August 22, 2007

Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Before Mr Justice Elias, Mrs C. Baelz and Mr R. Lyons

Judgment July 23, 2007

A chief inspector of police who was dyslexic and who was found by an employment tribunal to have been disadvantaged in comparison with his work colleagues in examinations for promotion, was disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal so held when allowing an appeal by the claimant, Chief Inspector David Paterson from the dismissal by a south London employment tribunal on July 24, 2006, of his disability discrimination claim against the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

Section 1 of the 1995 Act provides: “...a person has a disability for the purposes of this Act if he has a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities”.

Mr James Laddie for the claimant; Ms Alison Padfield for the police.

MR JUSTICE ELIAS said the claimant had discovered in 2004 that he suffered from dyslexia. He alleged that he was disabled and had been discriminated against for a reason relating to his disability particularly in determining whether he should be promoted and that his employers had failed to make reasonable adjustments.

The tribunal had found that there was no substantial disadvantage in day-to-day activities. Any adverse effects of his impairment were minor. There was a substantial disadvantage with respect to carrying out promotion examinations but that was not a day-to-day activity.

It was argued for the claimant that once it was accepted that the disability affected his ability to progress in his profession, the only reasonable inference was that it had a substantial effect on his day-to-day activities.

Where it was not disputed that an employee was suffering a substantial disadvantage because of the effects of his disability in the procedures adopted for deciding between candidates for promotion, the only proper inference was that those effects must involve a more than trivial effect on his ability to undertake normal day-to-day activities.

It would fundamentally undermine the protection which the Act was designed to provide were it otherwise. The claimant was disabled within the meaning of the 1995 Act and the appeal would be allowed.

Solicitors: Russell Jones & Walker; Ms E. McCafferty, Victoria.

Explore Law

• Corporate Law

• Public Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Student Law

• Law Reports

Times Recommends

• HM Revenue sued over pension scheme tax
• Farepak liquidators to sue former directors
• McCartney and Mills: it's finally over