If a disability explains what you did, your employer cannot skip straight to discipline.
“S.15 and s.19 disability discrimination claims succeeded; awarded £51,223.40. HarassmentUnwanted behaviour related to a protected characteristic, such as your sex, race, disability, age or religion, that violates your dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile or humiliating environment... and victimisationBeing treated badly because you've raised a complaint, supported someone else's complaint, or done something else the law protects, such as raising a grievance or whistleblowing. It is unlawful in its... dismissed.”
If a disability plays a part in something you are accused of at work, your employer must actually consider that connection before disciplining you. It must also look at less punishing options first.
- Tell your employer if you think a disability might explain something you are accused of, even if you cannot describe it in clinical terms.
- Ask what less restrictive options, such as mediation or extra time to adjust, were considered before any formal process started.
- If a disciplinary or investigation process drags on for months without a decision, get advice on whether that delay is itself a problem.
The situation
A learning technologist at the University of Manchester has dyspraxia, which affects her short-term memory. She used the wrong pronoun for a transgender colleague, without meaning to. The university opened a formal disciplinary-style process and found that she had unlawfully harassed her colleague. It then left the matter open for more than eighteen months before finally confirming that no disciplinary action would follow. During that time it isolated her from her colleagues and removed her from a role she had wanted to keep. It did not let her return to work for five months after her sick leave ended.
What the tribunal found
The tribunal found that the university failed to consider dyspraxia as the cause of the pronoun mistake, even though the condition can affect short-term memory and the ability to reliably recall recently changed pronouns. It ruled that this amounted to discrimination arising from disabilityA type of disability discrimination under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, where you're treated unfavourably because of something connected to your disability, like time off or how a condition aff... under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010The main piece of legislation protecting employees from discrimination at work. It covers nine protected characteristics including age, disability, sex, race, and religion, and makes it unlawful for a..., because the university reached for a formal process when gentler options, like mediation or more time to adjust, were still on the table and untried. It also upheld a claim of indirect disability discrimination, because treating any repeated pronoun error as harassment disadvantaged people with memory-related disabilities more than everyone else. A manager in her department and an HR partner led the investigation. The tribunal found them personally liable for keeping alive a narrative that she was using her disability as a defence. The claims of harassment and victimisation were dismissed, and she was awarded £51,223.40, most of it for injury to feelingsA head of compensation in discrimination claims that recognises the distress and hurt caused by discriminatory treatment, separate from any financial loss. The amount is assessed using the Vento guide....
Sylvester v Phillpson and others (2400241/2024), Manchester Employment Tribunal, liability decision 10 November 2025, remedy decision 23 March 2026.