What happened?
Mr Johnston, a dyslexic candidate, applied for a permanent role as an assistant statistician with the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) in August 2020. Despite having successfully performed the role for over two years as a temporary agency worker, he faced difficulty with the recruitment process owing to a numeracy test that included complex written language. Mr Johnston requested adjustments to the test to accommodate his dyslexia, including reducing or removing the written language component. NISRA offered adjustments such as extra time, an individual testing environment, and a reader, but refused to provide an alternative ‘word-light’ test or waive the test entirely. Mr Johnston did not accept these adjustments, and his application did not proceed. He claimed disability discrimination.
What did the court decide?
The industrial tribunal in Northern Ireland found that NISRA’s refusal to provide an alternative ‘word-light’ numeracy test constituted a failure to make reasonable adjustments for Mr Johnston as a disabled person. This constituted unlawful disability discrimination.
Why was it unreasonable to refuse?
Mr Johnston’s dyslexia placed him at a substantial disadvantage owing to the linguistic complexity of the numeracy test and the time constraints. Despite his proven proficiency in numeracy, demonstrated by his successful performance in the role without adjustments for over two years, he had previously failed the test with the same adjustments offered.
The adjustments provided by NISRA did not effectively address the disadvantage caused by the language component of the test. A more effective adjustment, such as a ‘word-light’ test, was available and reasonable. The tribunal rejected NISRA’s argument for a consistent assessment approach, stating that Mr Johnston’s dyslexia warranted a flexible approach to assessment. NISRA had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for ruling out this option.
The tribunal said ‘The respondent is a large employer, with the benefit of a dedicated HR service and detailed recruitment policies and procedures which provided ample guidance on the question of reasonable adjustments. It also had the benefit of a specialist advisor on this important issue. The tribunal regards these factors to be significant.’
What can we learn?
Duty
You must make reasonable adjustments to your selection processes if a candidate is at a significant disadvantage owing to a disability.
Assessment
When assessing the reasonableness of adjustments, consider alternatives that may be more effective in addressing the disadvantage. You can seek expert advice, but you are ultimately responsible for deciding on what adjustments are reasonable for you.
Consistency
Consistency in assessing candidates should not be prioritised if it places a candidate with a disability at a disadvantage.
Selection
You are entitled to check that a candidate has the required key skills but ensure that any selection tests are relevant to the role and accommodate the needs of candidates with disabilities.
