When tribunal cases involve dyslexia, the issue is rarely the diagnosis itself.

It’s usually about what happened next.

In the recent case of Dr N Clark & Ms C Goble v Fife Employment Access Trust (FEAT), the tribunal looked closely at dyslexia, performance concerns and whether reasonable adjustments were properly considered.

Cases like this aren’t about creating fear. They’re about understanding how everyday management decisions are examined when things escalate.

Here’s what this one tells us.

The background in simple terms

One of the claimants, Ms Goble, had dyslexia. Dyslexia can fall within the definition of disability under the Equality Act where it has a substantial and long-term impact.

As is common in these cases, the tension arose around performance and expectations.

The tribunal had to consider:

• Whether the employer knew about the dyslexia
• Whether the employee was placed at a disadvantage
• Whether reasonable adjustments were properly considered
• Whether the employer’s actions were fair and proportionate

And that’s usually where these cases turn.

The key point: this wasn’t about “can you manage performance?”

Employers absolutely can manage performance where someone has a disability.

The Equality Act doesn’t prevent accountability.

What it does require is that employers pause and consider whether:

• The issue is linked to the disability
• A workplace process is creating unnecessary disadvantage
• Areasonable adjustment could remove or reduce that disadvantage

That pause is critical.

Tribunals often look for evidence that the employer slowed down long enough to think, rather than reacting quickly to performance concerns.

Knowledge is everything

A big factor in many dyslexia cases is knowledge.

If an employer genuinely doesn’t know about a disability, the duty to make adjustments may not arise. But once dyslexia is disclosed even informally the situation changes.

Managers don’t need to become medical experts. They do need to:

• Take disclosure seriously
• Explore what impact it may have
• Escalate appropriately if unsure
• Document conversations

What tribunals tend to examine is not perfection, but whether the employer acted reasonably once they knew.

Dyslexia and written performance

Dyslexia often shows up in areas like written communication, organisation, spelling, formatting or processing large volumes of text quickly.

If performance concerns sit in those areas, the question becomes:

Is this purely capability?
Or is the workplace process creating a barrier?

Reasonable adjustments for dyslexia can include things like:

• Assistive technology
• Proofreading support
• Getting additional time for written tasks
• Clearer templates
• Structured instructions

Not every reasonable adjustment will be appropriate in every role. That’s not the expectation.

What is expected is that adjustments are genuinely considered before moving into formal processes.

Process matters more than people realise

Tribunals are very process focused.

They look at:

• Whether expectations were clear
• Whether feedback was specific
• Whether reasonable adjustments were discussed
• Whether decisions were documented
• Whether actions were proportionate

Where employers can demonstrate that they thought carefully, consulted properly and acted reasonably, their position is much stronger.

Where there’s little evidence of consideration, it becomes harder to defend decisions later.

The wider lesson for employers

Cases like this aren’t about one bad decision. They’re usually about small gaps that build up that could include:

• Unclear role expectations
• Reactive performance conversations
• No structured reasonable adjustment framework
• Managers unsure how to respond to disclosure

When those foundations aren’t solid, situations escalate.

Neuroinclusion isn’t about removing standards. It’s about removing unnecessary barriers.

And when that distinction isn’t clear, performance management can quickly become a legal issue.

What employers should be reflecting on

If you’re reading this as an HR or people leader, the useful question isn’t “would we win a tribunal?”

It’s:

• Do our managers know what to do when someone discloses dyslexia?
• Do we distinguish clearly between performance and disability-related barriers?
• Do we document reasonable adjustment discussions properly?
• Are our probation and performance frameworks structured, or informal?

Those are the questions that prevent escalation.

Why this matters right now

Awareness of neurodiversity is increasing. So are tribunal claims involving disability.

Not because standards are falling.
But because expectations around fairness and process are rising.

Organisations that invest in clarity, documentation and manager confidence are far less likely to find themselves defending decisions later.

How Enna supports employers

At Enna, we work with employers to build confident, structured approaches to:

• Reasonable adjustments
• Performance management
• Probation processes
• Disability conversations

Our focus isn’t on avoiding tribunals through fear. It’s on building systems that are fair, clear and sustainable.

When managers feel confident and processes are consistent, inclusion becomes much easier to deliver.