Hussain v London Fire Commissioner: EAT upholds disability knowledge finding but remits discrimination claim

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has dismissed an appeal concerning an employer’s constructive knowledge of an employee’s dyslexia, while allowing a separate appeal relating to disability discrimination arising from anxiety and depression.

In Hussain v London Fire Commissioner [2026] EAT 159, Deputy High Court Judge John Bowers KC considered whether an employment tribunal had correctly applied the legal principles governing an employer’s duty to make reasonable enquiries about a potential disability, and whether it had properly assessed a claim under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010.

The claimant, who began working as a firefighter in 2004, argued that the London Fire Commissioner should have known he was dyslexic before October 2019. The employer accepted that it had actual knowledge of the disability from 14 October 2019, when an educational psychologist’s report confirmed it.

Employer’s enquiries into dyslexia were reasonable

The claimant had completed a British Dyslexia Association checklist with his line manager in December 2017, which indicated mild dyslexia. The employer subsequently arranged a Lucid Adult Dyslexia Screening (LADS) test, undertaken in July 2018, which indicated a low probability of dyslexia. No further assessment followed at that stage. The employer resumed enquiries in March 2019, leading to the educational psychologist’s report in October.

The claimant contended that administrative delays and the failure to pursue further assessment after July 2018 meant the employer ought reasonably to have identified his disability earlier. The timing mattered because the employment tribunal considered only two of the eight provisions, criteria or practices relied on in his reasonable adjustments claim, as the others pre-dated the employer’s knowledge.

The EAT rejected this ground of appeal. Applying the principles in Gallop v Newport City Council and A Ltd v Z, the judge emphasised that an employer must take such steps as it could reasonably be expected to take to establish whether an employee is disabled. The assessment is objective and must balance the likelihood that further enquiries will produce relevant information against the employee’s dignity and privacy.

The judge found that the employment tribunal had considered the reasonableness of the enquiries made, including the screening result and the absence of earlier indications that dyslexia substantially affected the claimant’s day-to-day activities. Given the low probability indicated by the test, the tribunal was entitled to conclude that further enquiries were not reasonably required. The appeal on this ground was dismissed.

Section 15 claim requires fresh consideration

The second ground concerned a distinct disability, anxiety and depression, and a claim under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010. The claimant alleged that he had been treated unfavourably after refusing to provide a statement about a potential safety issue he had raised with management.

The agreed list of issues identified the relevant “something arising” from disability as the refusal to provide the statement. The employment tribunal, however, focused on whether the treatment had been influenced by the claimant’s mental health itself.

The EAT held that this approach failed to distinguish the disability from the alleged consequence of that disability. The question was whether the refusal to provide a statement arose in consequence of the claimant’s anxiety and depression, and whether the unfavourable treatment occurred because of that refusal. The judge also found that the tribunal had erred by focusing on the manager’s motive, contrary to the approach in City of York Council v Grosset.

The tribunal’s conclusions on justification could not cure the error because it had addressed the wrong issue. The EAT therefore allowed this ground of appeal and remitted the section 15 claim to the same employment tribunal for fresh consideration by reference to the agreed list of issues.

The decision leaves the constructive knowledge finding undisturbed while requiring the tribunal to reconsider the separate claim of discrimination arising from disability.