In August of 2017, in quest of the then-25-year-old Johanna Lindgren from the service provider on the contact points. Already at that time informed her about his dyslexia. In december, she was so in the work, and the result of his period of probation in the post in march, after a six-week training period.
it was Johanna’s summoned to the boss’s office. There, she found out that she was arbetsbefrias ahead of time. The reason, according to the director, was språkbrister, combined with the difficulties of the profession, which is that she has not understood the essence of the message. The picture of the incident, refusing Visitors.
„It was only a skrivsvårigheterna,“ she said.
no specific dyslexihjälpmedel, despite the fact that she drew the attention of the training manager, on her dyslexia. What she had was a laptop, so that she would not have to write as well as writing support in the form of an other service provider who helped her with her notes. When it was time for her to start her service, she was either keep the laptop or skrivstödet. She had no means at all, that is something that the employer perceived that she had.
„I have said to the employer, from the very beginning that I was dyslexic, but they didn’t take that into account,“ says Joanna.
Huvudförhandlingar in the case were held a couple of weeks ago. Jessica Berlin, förbundsjurist of the PC, and For the agent in the case, believes the police action is reprehensible.
„It is quite remarkable that the police have handled the case so be it,“ she says.
Johanna’s immediate supervisor during the period of employment. Mejlkonversationer from the visitors, to show that she helped to correct For the texts during the trial period. She does not wish to comment on the grounds that the judgment has not fallen, and that there is a personalärende. It is, instead, Lars Åström, arbetsrättsjurist of the Swedish agency for government employers and the representatives of the state of the case, as you will need to answer questions about the police’s handling of them.
He points out that Johanna herself is not bad, if a few extra tools after the training has been completed, and that the police therefore believed that she had the tools she needed for her work.
“ Yes, it is, perhaps, ought to have been. But now, if you didn’t have it, “ says Lars Åström.
“ Well, yes, that is true. However, of late, it is still a trial, and the police found that she could not do the job. The programme will provide the basis for the work of the operator, but it may not be correct all the deficiencies.
“ That’s why we call this type of case comes up. It has to work and be completely in the right. Inringarna to be able to trust that the recipient will understand what you are saying.
and admitted that it failed to investigate the case properly, what you are willing to pay for the 20,000 kroner. The plaintiff, require the 175,000 sek diskrimineringsersättning, and as many as 90,000 kronor, plus interest, in compensation for the loss of income.
Whether or not the police had acted in violation of the anti-discrimination act will be determined march 4th. Then, the judgment in the case.
<
