ADHD in the Workplace Update
Case Law Update and What Employers Need to Know About the Law
Awareness of ADHD in the workplace has grown significantly in recent years, alongside a broader understanding of neurodiversity and mental health. Yet while many employers are becoming more conscious of the need to create inclusive workplaces, recent Employment Tribunal cases demonstrate that legal and practical misunderstandings remain common.
For employers, the issue is no longer simply one of awareness or good intentions. ADHD can amount to a disability under the Equality Act 2010, bringing with it significant legal obligations. Failures to recognise neurodivergent needs, implement reasonable adjustments, or properly consider the impact of ADHD on behaviour and performance have increasingly led to costly and reputationally damaging tribunal claims.
At the same time, the cases also show that many disputes are avoidable. In several instances, relatively simple adjustments, clearer communication, better manager training, or earlier occupational health involvement may have changed the outcome entirely.
For more information about the legal position of ADHD:
Recent ADHD Employment Tribunal cases
In the last couple of years, there have been a number of cases that highlight some of the issues that surround ADHD in the workplace.
Bahar Khorram v Capgemini UK plc (2025)
Ms Khorram, an experienced cloud technologist, joined Capgemini in a senior role in 2023. She disclosed her ADHD diagnosis during her probationary period and underwent an occupational health assessment.
The assessment identified several recommendations, including ADHD coaching, realistic task-setting, additional support and training in time management strategies. However, the tribunal found that Capgemini failed to properly implement key recommendations.
Ms Khorram struggled with ambiguity and became overwhelmed by the breadth of competing workstreams, ultimately failing her probationary period and being dismissed.
The tribunal accepted that her ADHD amounted to a disability under the Equality Act 2010 and held that Capgemini failed to make reasonable adjustments. Although the tribunal concluded that she may not ultimately have passed probation even with adjustments, it still awarded compensation exceeding £24,000.
The case demonstrates that employers cannot simply commission occupational health assessments and then fail to act on the recommendations provided.
Burns v Gitpod (2025)
Shannon Burns, a senior engineering executive earning more than £220,000, was dismissed following an incident during a company retreat in Austria.
After losing her hotel key card following an evening involving alcohol, she ended up sleeping overnight in a hotel sauna. Gitpod later dismissed her, arguing that colleagues had lost confidence in her leadership.
However, the tribunal heard that Burns had previously disclosed her ADHD diagnosis and specifically requested support, including ADHD coaching and occupational health referrals. No adjustments or support were provided.
The tribunal accepted that aspects of the behaviour leading to dismissal, particularly forgetfulness and executive functioning difficulties, were linked to her ADHD rather than simply poor judgment or alcohol consumption.
Her disability discrimination claim succeeded. Importantly, the tribunal emphasised that employers must consider whether conduct may arise from a disability before taking disciplinary action.
The case also serves as a reminder that workplace inclusion obligations extend beyond the office itself and into social events, offsite and team-building exercises.
Vale v Avon and Somerset Police (2026)
Donna Vale successfully brought a disability discrimination claim after Avon and Somerset Constabulary failed to provide her with noise-cancelling headphones as a reasonable adjustment.
Interestingly, Ms Vale already owned noise-cancelling headphones at home. However, the tribunal held that this did not remove the employer’s duty to make reasonable adjustments.
Judge Edmund Beever stated that the duty rests with the employer rather than the employee. The tribunal made clear that employers cannot rely on employees informally “self-helping” instead of properly considering and implementing adjustments themselves.
The case highlights how proactive employers must be once they are aware of a disability and potential support needs.
Toghill v Lidl Great Britain Ltd (2026)
One of the most significant recent cases involved Mr Toghill, a deputy store manager dismissed for misusing a powered pallet truck contrary to company instructions.
Lidl treated the matter as gross misconduct and viewed Mr Toghill’s conduct during the disciplinary process, particularly what it perceived as a lack of remorse, negatively.
However, the tribunal accepted that Mr Toghill’s ADHD symptoms included anxiety, communication difficulties and rejection sensitivity. Rejection sensitivity refers to an intense emotional response to criticism or perceived rejection and is increasingly recognised as a feature experienced by some individuals with ADHD.
The tribunal found that Lidl failed to properly consider how ADHD affected Mr Toghill’s communication style and reactions during the disciplinary process.
Although the misconduct itself could potentially justify disciplinary action, the employer’s failure to make reasonable adjustments and fairly assess the impact of disability rendered the dismissal procedurally unfair. Mr Toghill was awarded more than £45,000.
The case is a significant reminder that tribunals will closely examine not only the misconduct itself but also the fairness and inclusivity of the employer’s process.
Hogger v Genesis PR Ltd (2025)
Nicola Hogger succeeded in a harassment claim after comments made about her being “disorganised” and “uncommitted” failed to properly account for her ADHD.
Ms Hogger had disclosed her diagnosis and previously discussed difficulties with prioritisation and workload management. The tribunal found that her employer should have understood that disorganisation and forgetfulness were recognised ADHD symptoms.
The comments made during performance discussions were found to have violated her dignity and created an adverse environment.
The case demonstrates the importance of manager awareness and careful language when discussing performance concerns involving neurodivergent employees.
Wright-Turner v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
This high-profile case resulted in one of the largest disability discrimination awards seen in the Employment Tribunal.
Mrs Wright-Turner, who had ADHD and PTSD, was employed in a senior local authority role. Following a period of disability-related sickness absence, her probationary period was extended and she was later dismissed without a proper process or meaningful opportunity to respond.
The tribunal found extensive procedural failings, discrimination and harassment. It also criticised the employer’s handling of grievances and appeals and identified failures to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice.
The impact on the claimant was devastating. The tribunal concluded that her health had deteriorated so significantly that she was unlikely to work again.
She was awarded approximately £4.5 million, including compensation for future loss of earnings, pension loss, injury to feelings, psychiatric injury and an ACAS uplift.
The case demonstrates the potentially enormous financial consequences of failing to properly support neurodivergent employees.
Lessons for employers
The recent tribunal decisions reflect a broader shift in how ADHD and neurodiversity are understood within the workplace. Employers are increasingly expected to move beyond surface-level assumptions and engage properly with how neurodivergent conditions may affect behaviour, communication and performance.
Several key lessons emerge:
Reasonable adjustments are a legal duty
Once an employer knows, or reasonably ought to know, that an employee may be disabled, the duty to consider reasonable adjustments arises.
This is not a passive obligation. Employers must actively engage with the employee, seek appropriate medical or occupational health advice where necessary, and genuinely consider what support may assist the individual.
Train managers properly
Line managers are often the first people to receive disclosures about ADHD or neurodivergent difficulties. Without proper training, managers may unintentionally dismiss concerns, misinterpret behaviour or handle situations insensitively.
Manager training should include:
- understanding common ADHD symptoms
- recognising how neurodivergence may affect communication and behaviour
- conducting supportive conversations
- understanding reasonable adjustments, and
- recognising when occupational health input may be appropriate
Do not assume misconduct is separate from disability
Several cases demonstrate that behaviour perceived as misconduct may in fact be connected to ADHD symptoms, including forgetfulness, overwhelm, emotional regulation difficulties or rejection sensitivity.
Employers should avoid rushing to disciplinary action without first considering whether disability may be contributing to the issue and whether adjustments or further investigation are required.
Occupational Health Assessments matter
Occupational health referrals can provide valuable expert guidance about workplace adjustments and support strategies. However, employers must do more than simply obtain a report. As the Capgemini case demonstrated, failing to follow recommendations may itself contribute to liability.
Communication matters
Employees with ADHD may struggle with ambiguity, information overload or high-pressure environments. Clear communication, structured meetings, realistic expectations and written follow-up notes can make a significant difference. In disciplinary or grievance situations, allowing additional processing time or adapting procedures may also be appropriate.
Inclusion extends beyond the office
The Gitpod case serves as a reminder that workplace culture includes conferences, social events, retreats and team-building exercises. Employers should consider whether workplace activities and expectations are genuinely inclusive for neurodivergent employees and whether support mechanisms are available outside traditional office settings.
Documentation remains critical
As with any employment issue, employers should maintain clear records of:
- disclosures
- adjustment requests
- occupational health referrals
- meetings
- support measures considered, and
- decisions taken
Good documentation may prove essential if a dispute later reaches tribunal.
Comment
The recent ADHD tribunal cases show that neurodiversity is no longer a niche HR issue. It is now firmly part of mainstream employment law and workplace culture.
Tribunals are increasingly recognising the complex ways ADHD can affect communication, emotional responses, organisation and workplace interactions. Employers who fail to understand or adapt to these realities face significant legal and financial risks.
At the same time, many of the adjustments required are neither costly nor complicated. Clear communication, supportive management, meaningful dialogue and thoughtful workplace processes can often make a substantial difference.
Ultimately, creating neuroinclusive workplaces is not simply about legal compliance. It is about enabling individuals to contribute effectively, reducing avoidable conflict, and building healthier and more productive organisations.
If you’d like to discuss any of the issues raised by this article, please get in touch.
The legal content provided by RSW Law Limited is for information purposes only and should not be relied on in any specific case without legal or other professional advice.
Copyright is owned by RSW Law Limited and all rights in such copyright are reserved.
