Employment tribunal case summary | Miss H Rashid v Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
What happened?
Humma Rashid joined the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (the Employer) as a project officer on a fixed-term contract, investigating complaints and writing up reports. Before she started, she declared her dyslexia, and Occupational Health advised her manager to discuss possible adjustments, such as extra reading and writing time. However, that advice never reached her line manager, and no adjustments were made.
For months Ms Rashid was told she was doing well and simply needed to speed up. When she raised her dyslexia and explained that she needed to check her work several times, she was reassured that they knew it was an issue and she was doing fine. At her mid-probation review she was marked as satisfactory and told so. Staff had been told that a satisfactory grade meant a permanent role in the reorganised body from 1 September.
Then, at a moderation meeting with no minutes recorded and a spreadsheet that later went missing, her grade was changed to improvement needed. She was taken aside and told there would be no permanent job.
An Access to Work assessment arrived about a week before her contract ended, recommending twelve adjustments.
Interim adjustments were finally put in place in July, seven months after she started. Unaware that managers had privately planned to extend her contract and hold a role open for her, Ms Rashid took lower-paid work elsewhere and resigned.
What claims were brought and what was decided?
Ms Rashid brought three claims under the Equality Act 2010:
- direct disability discrimination (section 13),
- discrimination arising from disability (section 15)
- failure to make reasonable adjustments (section 20).
The tribunal upheld all three.
It found that the downgrade targeted Ms Rashid alone over writing weaknesses which the Employer knew were linked to her dyslexia, with no credible explanation.
The delay in assessing and making adjustments left her feeling downgraded, denied a permanent role and caused her real distress. The support she needed should have been considered from the start, and came far too late to make any difference.
What does this mean for employers?
A disclosure only helps if it reaches the relevant people. Here the paperwork existed, but the line manager never saw it. Reassuring someone that they are on a learning curve while privately treating their work as below standard leaves them no chance to improve, and hands the Tribunal clear evidence of unfairness. Missing minutes and lost documents made the downgrading decision almost impossible to defend.
Top lessons for employers
- Paper is key – keep proper records of appraisal and moderation meetings.
- Act on a disclosure straight away, and make sure Occupational Health advice and adjustment requests actually reach the line manager.
- Consider adjustments early, before performance concerns harden into formal grades.
- Give honest, specific feedback. Do not tell someone their work is fine if it is a genuine concern.
- Do not let a reorganisation break the chain of communication with an employee whose job is at risk.
- It is vital for employers to be able to support their team and find the way to get the balance right, for top tips, check out neurodiversity tips and tricks from how we can support you.
How can Thrive Law help?
We help employers build practical, legally sound processes around disability and reasonable adjustments, from training managers to spot and act on a disclosure, to reviewing appraisal and probation procedures before they cause problems.
To understand how better to support individuals with dyslexia, check out our dyslexia at work blog here!.
For more key case summaries, employment law, neurodiversity and mental health content, along with some top tips to keep your businesses thriving ! Check out Jodie Hill’s YouTube
Conclusion
The adjustments Ms Rashid needed were modest and largely funded by Access to Work. The cost of getting it wrong was a lost employee, a resignation that could have been avoided and three discrimination findings. Acting early and collaboratively would have changed all of it.
References
Read the full judgment: Miss H Rashid v Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (2424622/2017)
GOV.UK decision listing: gov.uk employment tribunal decisions
