UK employment appeal — was my probation dismissal premature where disability adjustments had not been fully tested?

I am appealing a probation dismissal and would appreciate views on whether my argument is legally and practically coherent.

My position is that the dismissal was premature and disproportionate. My probation had been extended to give me a chance to improve under an adjusted support framework. My concern is that the framework was not clearly put into day-to-day practice, applied consistently across different managers/workstreams, or given enough time to be properly tested before the decision to dismiss me was made.

I am not arguing that no support was provided. Support did exist. My argument is that the specific adjustments needed to reduce the disadvantage caused by my autism were not consistently embedded into how I was managed and assessed.

In simple terms, I understand a PCP to mean a workplace rule, expectation, standard, or way of managing people. It does not have to be written down. In my case, the relevant PCPs included expectations that I demonstrate sustained independence, ownership, QA, output validation, professional judgement and communication across complex and sometimes ambiguous analytical work, while adapting to different managers, feedback styles and project environments.

Because of my autism, those expectations placed me at a disadvantage unless they were made explicit and consistently supported. I am more likely to need clear written objectives, explicit expectations, worked examples, staged feedback, clear boundaries, and time to process and embed behavioural or communication feedback.

The concerns used to justify dismissal — independence, QA, structuring outputs, communication, judgement and professional behaviours — are also areas where autism can create workplace disadvantage if expectations are unclear or inconsistently communicated.

The adjustments I believe should have been properly embedded included:

• clear written task briefs;
• examples of expected outputs where appropriate;
• staged check-ins;
• explicit feedback separating technical issues from communication/judgement issues;
• a shared project-level adjustment plan so that different managers assessed me consistently.

My external workplace needed guidance because coaching itself was not the full adjustment. The real adjustment was whether those strategies were embedded into everyday management, feedback and assessment. My concern is that there is limited evidence that this was fully done before dismissal.

Timing is also a major issue. My probation was extended to a specific later date, but I was dismissed before the extension had concluded. The purpose of the extension was to test whether I could improve under the adjusted framework. The decision was also made shortly after external coaching ended, leaving limited time to see whether those strategies had translated into sustained independent performance.

There was also recent evidence of improvement during the extension period. On my latest workstream, I received positive feedback for working independently, producing accurate work, and communicating effectively. I also submitted a progress deck showing improvements in my QA process, working practices and approach to feedback. This seemed directly relevant because it came from the period when the adjusted framework was supposed to be tested.

I accept that earlier feedback identified genuine development areas. However, some of that feedback came before the adjustment framework had been fully developed, or during complex and open-ended analytical work where expectations were not always clear. The whole point of the extension was to test whether those issues could be addressed with the right framework.

I also think less discriminatory and more proportionate alternatives were available before dismissal, such as:

• allowing the extension to run to its stated end date;
• a short further adjusted review period;
• clear written objectives and weekly feedback;
• embedding the external recommendations into everyday management;
• assessment under a different manager or reporting line;
• redeployment;
• a bench/floating analyst period.

My legal argument is that the employer failed to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010. In the alternative, I am arguing that the dismissal may have been discrimination arising from disability under section 15, because the issues relied on against me were materially connected to autism-related workplace disadvantages.

I am not saying autism means performance standards cannot apply. My point is that once the employer knew about my autism and had external adjustment recommendations, it needed to properly implement and fairly test the adjustment framework before deciding I could not meet those standards.

My preferred outcome is reinstatement into a further adjusted review period with clear written objectives, weekly feedback and the recommendations embedded into day-to-day management.

If reinstatement into the same role is not practicable, I am asking them to consider redeployment, a different manager, a short bench/floating analyst placement, or another proportionate alternative.

If continued employment is not possible, I still want the appeal outcome to address whether the dismissal was premature, whether the adjustments were properly implemented, and whether another agreed resolution would be appropriate.

Does this sound like a coherent appeal argument, or am I missing something important?