When the Smallest Adjustment Matters: What the Bean Case tells Us About Dyslexia at Work
Updated: Oct 17
I'm doing my weekly scan of tribunal claims and reports linked to Neurodiversity. Everyone is talkig about the BBC and the new government report on Neurodiversity. I thought I'd look at something a little different. So here we have NSL Ltd v Bean [2026] EAT 132. I have added the solicitor write ups below that' I've looked at.
On paper, it’s a dispute about GPS data, disciplinary notes, and a long‑serving employee accused of “ghost logging”. But underneath the legal framing sits a much more human story: a dyslexic employee navigating a process that simply wasn’t built for him.
And that’s where the real learning lies.
The misconduct wasn’t the issue — the process was
Let’s start with the part that surprises people: The tribunal found that Mr Bean did commit the misconduct. The employer’s evidence was preferred. The dismissal itself was justified. Yet the dismissal was still unfair. Why? Because the process wasn’t accessible for someone with severe dyslexia.
He was asked to sign handwritten notes he couldn’t read. He wasn’t allowed to take them away to process them. The allegations and technical data were unclear. The employer didn’t pause to ask:
“How does dyslexia change how he experiences this?”
That failure alone made the dismissal procedurally unfair.
This is the part organisations often miss: You can be right about the facts and still wrong about the process.
The 100% reduction: a legal nuance with a cultural message
The tribunal reduced the compensatory award by 100%. Not because the employer behaved perfectly, they didn’t. But because the dismissal was inevitable once the misconduct was proven. However, the basic award remained intact. The EAT upheld that.
This matters. It tells us:
Even when misconduct is real,
Even when dismissal is justified,
Even when compensation is reduced to zero,
Failing to make reasonable adjustments still has consequences.
The law doesn’t say, “If they did the thing, nothing else matters.” It says, “Process matters. Accessibility matters. Disability matters.”
The adjustment that would have changed everything
Here’s the part that should make every HR leader pause:
The adjustment Mr Bean needed was tiny.
Let him take the notes home so he could read them.
That’s it. No specialist software. No external assessment. No complex redesign of the process. Just time. And respect for how his brain works. Cost: £0 Time: 24 hours Impact: avoiding a multi‑year legal process. This is the heart of the case and the heart of neurodiversity inclusion. The adjustments that matter most are often the smallest.
The EAT’s message to employers: stop and think
The EAT upheld the finding that NSL failed to make reasonable adjustments. They were clear:
The duty to adjust sits with the employer, not the employee.
The employee doesn’t need to know the exact adjustment to request.
If the disadvantage is obvious, the employer must act.
This is crucial for neurodivergent staff, many of whom:
don’t know what adjustments they’re “allowed” to ask for,
don’t want to be seen as difficult,
don’t realise the process itself is the barrier.
The law recognises this. Workplaces need to catch up.
The cultural lesson: neurodiversity isn’t about grand gestures
This case isn’t about autism training programmes or workplace redesigns. It’s about the everyday moments where inclusion either happens or doesn’t.
It’s about:
letting someone read information in their own time,
providing clarity instead of ambiguity,
recognising that handwritten notes aren’t neutral,
understanding that “short notes” aren’t automatically accessible,
remembering that cognitive load is real.
It’s about the micro‑accommodations you talk about so often on SEND IT — the tiny shifts that make work feel possible rather than punishing.
The organisational takeaway
If you strip away the legal language, the message is simple:
The cost of not adjusting is always higher than the cost of adjusting.
Not just financially. Culturally. Reputationally. Humanly.
This case is a reminder that neurodiversity inclusion isn’t about perfection. It’s about noticing. Pausing. Asking. And making the small changes that prevent big consequences. Because sometimes the difference between fairness and unfairness is as small as letting someone take the notes home.
Comments