Employment Appeal Tribunal upholds unfair dismissal finding against NSL Ltd but partially allows disability discrimination appeal in NSL Ltd v Bean

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), in a judgment handed down on 15 September 2026 in NSL Ltd v Dean Bean ([2026] EAT 132), delivered a split ruling with significant implications for employers managing disciplinary processes involving disabled employees. Mr Bean, a long-serving Civil Enforcement Officer with severe dyslexia, was dismissed for gross misconduct after NSL Ltd concluded he had falsely recorded his whereabouts during a patrol in April 2019. The misconduct allegation rested principally on data from his handheld device, which Bean maintained was unreliable. During the investigation, Bean complained that he had been required to sign handwritten investigation notes he could not read due to his disability, and that the allegations and technical material were presented without appropriate support. The original Employment Tribunal found, by majority, that the dismissal was unfair and upheld claims of indirect disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and disability-related harassment. It made a 100% reduction to the compensatory award reflecting its finding that dismissal would have been inevitable, but declined to reduce the basic award. Her Honour Judge Tucker dismissed NSL's appeal on unfair dismissal, holding that the Tribunal had correctly assessed that the lack of clarity in the allegations and technical evidence rendered the dismissal unfair even accounting for the appeal stage. The failure to make reasonable adjustments finding was also upheld: requiring Bean to sign investigation notes before he could read or understand them placed him at a substantial disadvantage, and allowing him to take notes away for review was a sufficiently identified reasonable step. However, the EAT NSL's appeals on and . On indirect discrimination, the Tribunal had failed to determine group disadvantage and had conflated the distinct statutory questions of justification and reasonable adjustment. On harassment, the Tribunal had not adequately explained how the unwanted conduct related to disability, nor made the required findings as to the proscribed effect. Disposal was reserved pending further submissions. Lydia Seymour KC and Emman Bhangu appeared for NSL, instructed by . Anna Loutfi appeared for Bean, instructed by .