Making Reasonable Adjustments for Disabled Employees

The case of Kumulchew v Starbucks Coffee Company UK Ltd has received much media attention and has provided useful guidance on the scope of disability and the reasonable adjustments required when an employee suffers from a disability.

Kumulchew v Starbucks Coffee Company UK Ltd

Background

The Equality Act 2010 protects employees from disability discrimination including harassment and victimisation.

If one employee discriminates against or harasses another in the course of employment, the employer will be liable for this unless it has taken reasonable steps to prevent such conduct from taking place, regardless of whether the employee’s acts were done with the employer’s knowledge or approval.

Further, the Equality Act 2010 A imposes a duty on employers to make reasonable adjustments to premises or to working practices to help disabled employees and to bear the cost of such adjustments.

Failing to comply with this duty is a form of discrimination but an employer will not be obliged to make reasonable adjustments unless it knows or ought reasonably to know that the individual is disabled and likely to be placed at a substantial disadvantage because of their disability. Examples of reasonable adjustments might include:

• Adjusting premises e.g. providing ramps
• Arranging training or mentoring
• Modifying or acquiring equipment
• Allocating some of a disabled person’s duties to another person
• Modifying policies, procedures and arrangements

Case Facts

Mrs Kumulchew works as a supervisor at a Starbucks branch, where she was required to enter a record of fridge and water temperatures at specific times. She suffers from dyslexia and has difficulties with reading, writing and telling the time.

This led to her making mistakes. After she mistakenly recorded some incorrect information, Starbucks accused her of falsifying documents and gave her lesser duties and re-trained her in various skills. This affected Mrs Kumulchew’s confidence, resulting in her feeling incapable and suicidal.

She brought a claim of disability discrimination against Starbucks, on the basis that she had made it known to her employer that she was dyslexic and had difficulties with words and numbers, and that she had to be shown how to complete tasks visually.

Mrs Kumulchew said she wanted help, for example, more time to understand and become familiar with a task and to have someone check her work for mistakes.

Decision

The tribunal found that Starbucks had failed to make reasonable adjustments for her dyslexia, which is a disability under the Equality Act 2010, and that it had discriminated against her because of the effects of her dyslexia.

The tribunal also found she had been victimised by her employer and that it appeared to have little or no knowledge or understanding of equality issues.

Comment

This is a wake-up call for employers, as it is estimated that as many as one in ten people have dyslexia.

The case emphasises how important it is for employers to try and understand the effects that an employee’s disability has on that particular employee and whether the employer can assist staff with disabilities to do their job.

There may be circumstances where duties can realistically be withheld from a staff member because of their dyslexia. However, these are likely to be rare. Employers always need to consider whether there are reasonable adjustments which could actually eliminate any issues.

Reasonable adjustments in relation to dyslexia may include, but are not limited to:

• Providing a colleague to proofread documents.
• Relaying instructions verbally as opposed to in writing.
• Allowing sufferers to record instructions or meetings with a Dictaphone instead of writing information down.
• Giving an employee more time to perform written tasks.

It is vital that the individual employee’s role, duties and particular circumstances are all considered and discussed with them before any determination is made regarding what the employee can or cannot do.

Employers should also review whether they have policies which may be particularly difficult for dyslexic employees to comply with and if so, they should consider amending these.