By Josh Hornsey, Sara Meyer, and Hilary Larter
|Published 05 November 2026
In this case, the EAT upheld an employment tribunal’s decision that the London Fire Brigade (LFB) did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, of an employee's dyslexia until it was confirmed in an educational psychologist’s report.
Sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010 require employers to make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees. An employer is not liable for a failure to make reasonable adjustments if it did not know, and could not reasonably be expected to know, of the disability.
Mr Hussain began work as a Firefighter in 2004. He became a Fire Safety Officer in development in 2016. He was required to complete a specific number of fire safety audits per month.
On 6 December 2017 Mr Hussain completed a British Dyslexia Association (BDA) checklist with his line manager, which indicated “mild dyslexia”. This triggered the LFB's policy of further screening via a Lucid Adult Dyslexia Screening test. Mr Hussain's result from that test indicated a low probability that he had dyslexia. In accordance with its policy, the LFB did not carry out any further investigation at that stage.
In March 2019 Mr Hussain commenced a long period of sickness absence. He moved back into operational firefighting duties on his return to work in August 2019, and was therefore no longer required to complete fire safety audits. The LFC decided to review his case because of the sickness absence, and arranged a further assessment. This led to an educational psychologist’s report of 14 October 2019 establishing disability by reason of dyslexia.
Mr Hussain submitted a number of claims to the tribunal, including for failure to make various reasonable adjustments. For example, he claimed that the number of audits he was required to complete each month in the Fire Safety Officer role should have been reduced as a reasonable adjustment. He said that the LFB ought to have known he was dyslexic from 6 December 2017 when he completed the BDA checklist.
The tribunal found that the LFB did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that Mr Hussain had dyslexia until it received the educational psychologist's report of 14 October 2019. This was because the enquiries the LFB had made were reasonable, and those enquiries indicated that there was a low probability Mr Hussain had dyslexia. The tribunal therefore held that it did not need to consider any of Mr Hussain's claims for adjustments before 14 October 2019.
The tribunal also dismissed Mr Hussain's claim that a manager berating him for refusing to provide a statement about a potential safety issue amounted to discrimination arising from disability (in this instance, Mr Hussain's anxiety and depression, rather than his dyslexia).
Mr Hussain appealed on both issues.
The EAT dismissed the appeal on the knowledge point. The tribunal had made findings on the reasonableness of the enquiries made, concluding that the LFB lacked sufficient information to know, or from which it ought to have known, of the disability before it received the psychologist's report. The enquiries the LFB had made showed the probability of dyslexia to be low, so it was not reasonable to expect the LFC to make further enquiries, particularly given that Mr Hussain had been employed for 14 years and there had been no previous indications of an impact on his day-to-day activities despite a number of assessments.
However, the EAT allowed the appeal on discrimination arising from disability. Mr Hussain's claim was that his refusal to provide a statement arose from his disability. However, the tribunal had wrongly focused on Mr Hussain's mental health as the "something arising" from disability. The tribunal's conclusion that the unfavourable treatment was justified also could not stand, as they had made a mistake as to what had to be justified in the first place. The EAT therefore remitted these issues to the tribunal.
This decision confirms that the duty to investigate whether or not a condition amounts to a disability has limits. An employer that makes reasonable enquiries which point away from disability is not required to keep investigating indefinitely, and will not be fixed with knowledge simply because a later assessment eventually confirms a disability. The key point is that the tribunal will assess the reasonableness of the steps taken to investigate the condition at the time, and what is reasonable will depend on the circumstances.
Employers should continue to make, and document, proportionate enquiries where there is a basis to suspect that an employee is disabled.
In relation to discrimination arising from disability, most employers defend these claims by arguing that any unfavourable treatment was justified. This case demonstrates that the elements of a claim will be subject to forensic analysis before justification can be considered.
Authors
