Neurodivergent conditions are no longer a peripheral HR issue. They are central to how workplaces function, and as a result, are increasingly the subject of employment tribunal claims.
A recent case involving global supermarket chain, Lidl, illustrates exactly why employers need to pay closer attention to these conditions. A deputy store manager, diagnosed with ADHD, was dismissed for gross misconduct after a disciplinary process that didn’t properly account for his condition. The tribunal found that reasonable adjustments, such as additional breaks, had not been offered during that process, and that a manager’s assessment of him as showing “a lack of remorse” was directly linked to communication differences associated with his ADHD. He was awarded more than £45,000 as a result.
With cases like these becoming more common, employers can’t afford to ignore how neurodivergence is reshaping the workplace.
The scale of the shift
Neurodivergence is an umbrella term used for conditions such as autism, ADHD, dyslexia and Tourette’s syndrome, among others. Diagnosis rates for ADHD and autism in particular have risen sharply, especially since the pandemic. That rise is showing up as a legal risk. Research from the City & Guilds Foundation’s Neurodiversity Index found that 13% of UK employers have already been involved in an employment tribunal relating to neurodiversity – a figure its authors describe as a marker to watch in the years ahead.
Separate research led by Dr Doug McKechnie at UCL found a near 20-fold increase in the number of UK adults diagnosed with ADHD between 2000 and 2018, whilst autism diagnosis rates were eight times higher in 2018 than in 1998. But there is evidence that the real picture may still be understated. A Lancet Regional Health Europe study found that whilst around 1.2% of adults in England have a formal ADHD diagnosis, international prevalence estimates suggest the real figure is closer to 3-5%. And research from King’s College London suggests roughly 90% of autistic people over 40 remain undiagnosed. With NHS assessment waiting lists at record levels, more employees are also raising concerns or seeking adjustments without a formal diagnosis in place at all. It’s important for employers to understand the legal view on this.
What the law states
Under the Equality Act 2010, a person doesn’t need a formal diagnosis to be legally protected. A condition will be treated as a disability if it has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, and this isn’t limited to work-based activities. While a diagnosis is not legally required, employers should still assess whether the employee’s symptoms are likely to meet the statutory definition of disability . Where this threshold is met, and the employer knows (or could reasonably be expected to know) of the disability and resulting disadvantage, employers may owe a duty to make reasonable adjustments. Failure to comply with that duty can amount to unlawful discrimination
This is known to catch employers out. A common and costly mistake is asking an employee for formal proof of diagnosis before considering support. It’s not the legal test, and insisting on it can expose an employer to risk.
Equally risky is moving straight to a performance or disciplinary process without considering whether an underlying disability, and a lack of appropriate adjustment, might be a contributing factor. The Lidl case exemplifies this mistake.
Discrimination claims don’t always involve an obvious decision like a dismissal. In one 2025 tribunal, a software engineer with ADHD succeeded in a discrimination claim based partly on a manager’s visible, non-verbal frustration towards him. As the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has noted, most cases reaching tribunal don’t stem from deliberate discrimination, but from adjustments being overlooked, performance processes never designed with different thinking styles in mind, and managers who simply haven’t had the training or confidence to have the right conversations.
That confidence gap shows in the data. The Neurodiversity Index also found employers rating their own “neurodivergent readiness” at 70-75%. Only 32-38% of neurodivergent employees said they felt psychologically safe disclosing their condition, or believed their employer truly understood the impact it has on them. This is often where “masking” comes in, employees hiding their traits to fit in at a cost to their wellbeing, highlighting that confident policies on paper don’t always translate into the workplace.
Understanding the limits of “reasonable”
None of this means employers must agree to every request. Tribunals have shown there are limits. In one case, a claimant with autism asked the Judicial Appointments Commission for extensive changes to its recruitment process, including simplified questions and advance sight of test material, on top of extra time and support. The tribunal found these further requests went beyond what was necessary or reasonable.
The key for employers is being able to show their reasoning, that a request was properly considered, alternatives explored, and any refusal justified rather than dismissed out of hand. Tribunals consider factors including the size and resources of the employer and the nature of the role. Larger organisations are generally expected to do more than smaller ones. Still, many effective adjustments like rethinking how meetings are run, building in regular breaks, or offering a quieter space to work cost little to nothing and are easy to implement. The risk of getting this wrong, even on something considered minor, is serious. A pub chain was found to have failed in its duty to a dyslexic chef after declining to provide a Bluetooth headset he’d requested to help him follow orders. This decision contributed to his dismissal and led to a £24,000 award.
Building this in, rather than reacting
Employers who rely solely on reactive adjustments may increase their exposure to legal risk
. Other businesses have introduced adjustments as the standard for all staff, rather than viewing each case as a one-off negotiation. This tends to reduce both legal exposure and the administrative burden of handling requests individually, though it isn’t without its critics. Some employers taking this approach report pushback from those who see it as unnecessary.
It’s also worth being internally clear about what these adjustments are for, such as the reasoning behind flexible working options or quiet workspace areas. The purpose is to enable employees to perform effectively and fairly, though employers may need to adapt working practices and performance management processes where reasonable
What occupational psychologists warn against, though, is a quieter problem: managers informally “covering” for neurodivergent colleagues without any formal adjustment in place, leaving the employee reliant on one manager’s goodwill. That support can disappear the moment that manager changes or patience runs out.
Why this is of growing importance
There’s a clear economic case underpinning this. The government’s ADHD Taskforce has estimated that “unsupported” ADHD costs the UK economy £17 billion a year, with separate research arguing autistic graduates are twice as likely to remain unemployed 15 months after graduating compared to non-disabled peers. The government has committed £3.5 billion to personalised employment support as part of a wider effort to address this.
At the same time, the pressure on employers to get this right is set to increase. Subject to planned implementation, the Employment Rights Act will reduce the qualifying period for unfair dismissal protection from two years’ service to six months, effective January 2027. Lawyers are expecting this to drive a significant rise in claims generally, against a backdrop where the tribunal system is already dealing with a record 531,000 open cases. For employers, that combination of rising diagnosis rates, lower barriers to bringing a claim, and lengthy uncertainty whilst cases are resolved makes getting policies and manager training now a wise investment.
Getting the right support in place
It doesn’t need to feel daunting. Most of what tribunals expect from employers is proportionate, well-documented decision-making, and that starts with managers who understand the basics. It’s about implementing processes that don’t inadvertently disadvantage neurodivergent staff, and promoting a culture where employees feel able to raise concerns before they escalate.
Our employment team regularly advises businesses on issues of this kind, from individual case management to broader policy reviews and manager training. If this is an area you’d like support with, we’d be glad to talk it through.
