Dyslexia overlooked in redundancy scoring: discrimination and unfair dismissal
A layout planner with dyslexia was unfairly dismissed by Marks and Spencer after scoring one point short of retention in a redundancy exercise that failed to make reasonable adjustments. The tribunal awarded £53,855.99.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Layout Planner from 17 March 2013 until dismissal on 31 October 2020.
- The claimant has dyslexia, which was diagnosed in 2009 and is a lifelong condition.
- The respondent knew the claimant had dyslexia before the redundancy process.
- The claimant was selected for redundancy after scoring 70% in a selection exercise; one more point would have retained her.
- The tribunal found that the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments and discriminated against the claimant because of something arising from her disability.
- The tribunal also found the dismissal was unfair and that the claimant would not have been dismissed if not for the unlawful acts.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for Marks and Spencer as a Layout Planner.
-
Furloughed
Claimant placed on furlough due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
-
Redundancy process begins
Respondent decided to restructure and began redundancy consultation.
-
First individual consultation (IC1)
Claimant attended IC1 meeting; raised concerns about race discrimination.
-
Second individual consultation (IC2)
Claimant raised dyslexia and its impact on her work; respondent dismissed link.
-
Third individual consultation (IC3) and dismissal notice
Claimant raised disability discrimination; respondent gave notice of dismissal effective 31 October 2020.
-
Appeal submitted
Claimant appealed, raising disability discrimination and requesting diverse appeal panel.
-
Appeal meeting
Claimant met with Hannah Waller; Waller did not properly consider disability link.
-
Appeal dismissed
Waller upheld dismissal, concluding dyslexia did not affect scoring.
-
Dismissal effective
Claimant's employment ended by reason of redundancy.
-
New job started
Claimant started role at Ralph Lauren, mitigating loss.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer discriminated against the employee because of something arising from her disability (dyslexia) and failed to make reasonable adjustments, and whether the dismissal for redundancy was unfair.
The outcome
The tribunal unanimously found that Marks and Spencer discriminated against the employee because of something arising from her disability (dyslexia) and failed to make reasonable adjustments. The dismissal was also unfair.
The key reasons were:
- The employer knew about the employee's dyslexia but did not adjust the redundancy selection criteria to account for its impact on her performance.
- The employee scored 70% in the selection exercise, just one point short of retention; the tribunal found that with reasonable adjustments she would not have been dismissed.
Compensation: £53,855.99 total (no further breakdown provided in the facts).
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must consider reasonable adjustments for disabled employees during redundancy selection, including how disability may affect scoring.
- A small scoring margin can be decisive if the tribunal finds that discrimination or failure to adjust caused the shortfall.
- Disability discrimination claims can succeed even when the employer's stated reason for dismissal is redundancy.
- Raising disability concerns during consultation does not automatically protect an employee, but it puts the employer on notice to consider adjustments.
When redundancy becomes discrimination
This case shows how a redundancy process that seems fair on paper can still be unlawful if it fails to account for an employee's disability. The employee, a layout planner with seven years' service at Marks and Spencer, had dyslexia — a lifelong condition the employer knew about. When the company restructured during the pandemic, she was selected for redundancy after scoring 70% in a selection exercise. One more point would have saved her job.
The tribunal found that the employer did not make reasonable adjustments for her dyslexia. The selection criteria — leadership, technical skills, and behaviours — were applied without considering how her disability might have affected her performance. The employee had raised her dyslexia during consultation, but the employer dismissed the link between her condition and the scoring. The tribunal concluded that if adjustments had been made, she would not have been dismissed.
What the employer could have done differently
Marks and Spencer could have avoided this outcome by taking simple steps: adjusting the selection criteria to discount disability-related effects, or providing extra support during the assessment process. The tribunal noted that the employer's appeal handler also failed to properly consider whether dyslexia had impacted the scoring. A more thorough and disability-aware process might have retained a long-serving employee and avoided a costly tribunal claim.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that redundancy does not automatically shield an employer from discrimination claims. If a disabled employee is selected for redundancy and the employer has not made reasonable adjustments, the dismissal may be unfair and discriminatory. Employees in similar situations should note that raising disability concerns during consultation is important, but the burden is on the employer to act. The £53,855.99 award reflects the seriousness of the failings, though the tribunal did not provide a detailed breakdown of the compensation.
Similar cases
HGV driver with 21 years' service wins constructive dismissal and disability discrimination claim against Asda
An HGV driver who resigned after Asda placed him in a capability process and failed to handle his grievance has been awarded over £163,000 for constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.
Sales advisor with 7 years' service unfairly dismissed in redundancy selection due to disability assumptions
A sales advisor with Polymyositis was unfairly dismissed after being scored lowest in a redundancy selection matrix that made incorrect assumptions about her ability to work alone. The tribunal awarded £46,658.71, with a 50% Polkey reduction.
Nursery worker with disability unfairly dismissed and discriminated against
A nursery worker was unfairly dismissed and subjected to disability discrimination by Monkton Under 5 Playgroup. The tribunal awarded £27,676 in compensation, including £16,200 for injury to feelings.
Dismissed while on sick leave: employer ignored offer of imminent return
A tribunal found that EE Limited unfairly dismissed a broadband technical support worker with panic disorder after it refused to wait a week for her to return to work, and also discriminated against her because of her disability.