Skip to Main content

Search results for ''...


Sorry, there were no results

Newsletter Sign Up

I would like to receive newsletters, event invitations and publications from Thomson Snell & Passmore by email on the following topics (tick all those that apply) and consent for my data to be processed for this purpose.

We respect your privacy and want news to be relevant. To either, click here or update your preferences by emailing us at info@ts-p.co.uk. Your personal data shall be treated in accordance with our & .

Get In Touch

By submitting an enquiry through 'get in touch' your data will only be used to contact you regarding your enquiry. If you would like to receive newsletters from Thomson Snell & Passmore please use the separate form below.

Newsletter Sign Up

I would like to receive newsletters, event invitations and publications from Thomson Snell & Passmore by email on the following topics (tick all those that apply) and consent for my data to be processed for this purpose.

We respect your privacy and want news to be relevant. To either, click here or update your preferences by emailing us at info@ts-p.co.uk. Your personal data shall be treated in accordance with our & .

Get In Touch

By submitting an enquiry through 'get in touch' your data will only be used to contact you regarding your enquiry. If you would like to receive newsletters from Thomson Snell & Passmore please use the separate form below.

  • Overview

    An Employment Tribunal has ruled that a dyslexic helpline worker was unfairly dismissed after his employer refused to allow him to move to a role answering queries via a new webchat platform, in Mr J Bulloss v Shelter, The National Campaign for Homeless People Ltd.

    James Bulloss worked as an adviser for the charity Shelter, initially as a telephone adviser. Bulloss asked if he could join the charity’s new webchat service team, in a role providing similar advice over an instant messaging service.

    During the trial period, in which the candidates were warned that if they failed they would return to the telephone service, his manager raised concerns over a series of spelling and grammatical errors. Bulloss was then reassigned roles and moved back from webchat service to telephone work. At the time, Bulloss was not diagnosed as dyslexic, but later informed his employer that he suspected he was dyslexic.

    During a following period of leave, Bulloss was diagnosed with dyslexia. Upon informing Shelter of his diagnosis, Bulloss was told that no adjustments were made because there was no diagnosis for dyslexia at the time of the event. In addition, his request to move back to webchat was not something Shelter would consider, with the charity considering reasonable adjustments unnecessary as his dyslexia did not affect his ability to perform effectively on the telephone.

    Bulloss brought claims of disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, victimisation and unfair dismissal against the charity.

    The Tribunal found that just because Bulloss’s job description included answering queries via both webchat and telephone, it should not mean a disabled employee wishing to undertake webchat work should be denied reasonable adjustments and instead be moved to work via telephone only.

    Shelter had failed to make reasonable adjustments and Bulloss had therefore been unfairly dismissed, discriminated against due to his disability, and harassed by his former employer. Bulloss was awarded £28,324. The judge also noted Bulloss’ desire to improve his career prospects and to benefit from improving his skills and experience in webchat advice.

    Our thoughts

    The case serves as a reminder of employers’ duty to make reasonable adjustments if an employee has made their manager aware of disadvantages faced due to a physical or mental impairment. This applies even if an employee does not have a medical diagnosis.

    The ruling also notes that if an employee is struggling with one element of their job due to a disability, the employer cannot simply not require them to not undertake that aspect of their role in order to avoid implementing reasonable adjustments.

    https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mr-j-bulloss-v-shelter-the-national-campaign-for-homeless-people-ltd-1806293-2017-and-1805354-2018

  • Related Services

    Employment Advice for Employees

    Our employment solicitors give straightforward legal advice, find proactive solutions and achieve quick results

    Discrimination and harassment

    You do not have to put up with bullying, harassment or discrimination in the workplace, our employment lawyers can advise you what your rights are.  

    Employment

    We act for businesses of all shapes and sizes and in many different sectors. Our advice covers all aspects of the employment relationship, helping to settle disputes, defending employment tribunal claims and providing immigration compliance audits.

Newsletter Sign Up

I would like to receive newsletters, event invitations and publications from Thomson Snell & Passmore by email on the following topics (tick all those that apply) and consent for my data to be processed for this purpose.

We respect your privacy and want news to be relevant. To either, click here or update your preferences by emailing us at info@ts-p.co.uk. Your personal data shall be treated in accordance with our & .

Get In Touch

By submitting an enquiry through 'get in touch' your data will only be used to contact you regarding your enquiry. If you would like to receive newsletters from Thomson Snell & Passmore please use the separate form below.

^
Jargon Buster