The claimant, a long-serving Civil Enforcement Officer with severe dyslexia, was dismissed for gross misconduct after the respondent concluded that he had falsely recorded his whereabouts during part of a patrol. During the investigation and disciplinary process, he complained that appropriate support had not been provided for his disability and this amounted to a failure to make reasonable adjustments and indirect disability discrimination. He also made two claims of harassment as he had been forced to agree handwritten notes he could not understand and because of a comment made in the outcome of his grievance that the notes were very short. The ET found the claimant had been unfairly dismissed, but reduced the compensatory award by 100% as they considered he had been guilty of the alleged misconduct though did not make any reduction to the basic award. The ET also upheld the claim of indirect discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments and both allegations of harassment. The respondent appealed.

HHJ Tucker dismissed the appeal against the unfair-dismissal decision as the lack of clarity in the allegations and technical evidence inevitably rendered the dismissal unfair. That inevitability was properly reflected by a 100% reduction in the compensatory award while the ET had also been entitled not to reduce the basic award. She also upheld the failure to make reasonable adjustments. However she allowed the appeal on indirect discrimination and harassment as the ET had failed to determine group disadvantage and had not adequately explained how the alleged conduct related to disability.