EAT upheld the unfair dismissal and reasonable-adjustments findings but overturned other discrimination findings
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has dismissed key parts of NSL Limited’s appeal against a finding that it unfairly dismissed a long-serving Civil Enforcement Officer with severe dyslexia. The EAT upheld the finding that NSL failed to make reasonable adjustments, but allowed the appeal concerning indirect disability discrimination and harassment.
The case concerned NSL Ltd v Dean Bean [2026] EAT 132, decided by Her Honour Judge Tucker on 15 September 2026. Mr Bean had worked as a Civil Enforcement Officer since 2007 before his employment transferred to NSL in 2017. He was dismissed without notice in June 2019 after NSL concluded that he had falsely recorded his whereabouts during a patrol.
The dispute centred on GPS data from a handheld device used to record officers’ locations. Mr Bean maintained that the device was unreliable, having crashed and rebooted four times that morning. The Employment Tribunal found that the GPS and related material were difficult to understand, including because colour-coded information had been supplied to Mr Bean in black and white without an adequate key or explanation.
The EAT rejected NSL’s challenge to the unfair dismissal finding. Judge Tucker held that the Employment Tribunal had been entitled to conclude that the lack of clarity surrounding the allegations and technical evidence rendered the dismissal unfair, notwithstanding the subsequent appeal process. The finding that dismissal would nevertheless have occurred was reflected in a 100% reduction of the compensatory award.
The EAT also upheld the finding that NSL failed to make reasonable adjustments. The Tribunal had found that expecting Mr Bean to sign handwritten investigation notes before he could properly read and understand them placed him at a substantial disadvantage. Allowing him to take the notes away for review before signing was a sufficiently identified reasonable adjustment.
However, the EAT overturned the indirect discrimination finding. It held that section 19 Equality Act 2010 and the reasonable-adjustments duty under section 20 are distinct and should be analysed separately. For indirect discrimination, the Tribunal had to establish both group disadvantage and individual disadvantage. The original Tribunal had addressed the individual position but had not properly considered whether the relevant practices placed disabled people generally at a particular disadvantage.
The EAT also found an error in the Tribunal’s approach to justification. While consistency may be a legitimate aim for an indirect discrimination claim, whether it is legitimate depends on the particular circumstances. The Tribunal had incorrectly imported reasoning relevant to reasonable adjustments into its section 19 analysis.
The harassment findings were also overturned. The EAT held that the Tribunal had not sufficiently explained how requiring Mr Bean to sign the notes was related to disability or established the statutory “proscribed effect” required under section 26 Equality Act 2010. Similar shortcomings affected the finding concerning the comment that the notes were “very short”.
The appeal was therefore dismissed on Grounds 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, with parts of Ground 7 also dismissed, while Grounds 8, 9 and 10 and part of Ground 7 were allowed. The EAT reserved disposal and directed the parties to provide written submissions.