Employment Tribunal Cases on Neurodiversity
We have collated a number of Employment Tribunal cases where neurodiversity in the workplace was a prominent feature. Some of these cases also proceeded to appeal at the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
Since the case of Hewett v Motorola in 2004 an increasing body of case law has developed where Employment Tribunal cases on neurodiversity discrimination at work have been reported.
We hope this resource provides useful guidance to employers and employees on how Employment Tribunal cases have dealt with disability discrimination related to neurodiversity.
Autism
Even though the case of Hewett v Motorola predates the Equality Act 2010 we have included it because it was one of the first appeal level cases that considered whether Autism met the legal test for disability . The original tribunal did not accept Mr Hewett was a disabled person because it was not convinced the evidence on his misunderstanding of social codes and instructions was a substantial impairment. Mr Hewett succeeded in his appeal.
Autism
The case of Elliott v Dorset County Council shows that Autism can meet the legal definition of disability even without a formal diagnosis. The claimant sought a formal diagnosis only after the disciplinary investigation had started. The case considered the legal definition for disability under the Equality Act and clarified that a “substantial impairment” means “more than minor or trivial”. Originally the claim did not succeed because the tribunal did not accept the effect on day to day activities was “substantial”. This was overturned on appeal by the Employment Appeal Tribunal who criticised the tribunal for giving undue weight to the claimant’s coping strategies.
Autism & ADHD
The 2025 appeal case of Stedman v Haven Leisure is another significant case to consider whether Autism meets the legal test for disability. The claimant in this case also had a diagnosis of ADHD. The original tribunal decided Mr Stedman did not have a qualifying disability. The Employment Appeal Tribunal overturned the decision following an appeal by Mr Stedman. The decision provides useful case law guidance on the legal test for disability, with particular application to neurodiversity. When deciding the affects on day-to-day activities a tribunal should not balance out what a claimant can do compared to what they cannot. Also, a tribunal should focus on whether a claimant can do a particular activity on some occasions, such as being able to travel on public transport when there are less passengers.
Autism
The case of Brookes v Government Legal Service considered adjustments to a recruitment process. An Autistic job applicant requested a change to the format of a multiple choice test so that she could submit short written answers instead. The tribunal accepted that the format of the test placed her at a substantial disadvantage compared to others without Autism. The employer appealed the decision but the Employment Appeal Tribunal rejected the employer’s appeal. The case is also noteworthy because the claimant, a law graduate, represented herself throughout the case.
Dyspraxia
Another case dealing with job applicants is Mallon v AECOM. The claimant’s Dyspraxia meant he struggled with a written application form. He asked to submit an oral application. The employer emailed him several times seeking further clarification. When he did not respond to emails the employer assumed he was ignoring them. The tribunal accepted that the claimant’s Dyspraxia made written communication difficult and it would have been reasonable for the employer to telephone him instead. The employer’s appeal on this point was rejected by the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
Dyslexia
In Bulloss v Shelter the claimant worked in customer advisory services. The employer raised concerns about the spelling and grammar of his online webchat messages. This is another case where the claimant did not have a formal diagnosis at the time the dispute started. The tribunal accepted that the various procedures in place for the webchat function placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage because of his Dyslexia. The tribunal also accepted that internal emails commenting on the claimant’s Dyslexia were disparaging and amounted to harassment under the Equality Act. During later remedy hearings the claimant was awarded a total of £52,332 damages.
Dyscalculia
In Molyneux v Apprentify a claimant with Dyscalculia who was on an apprenticeship scheme was discriminated against because of something arising from disability when she failed a maths test. The claimant also succeeded in her claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments and victimisation under the Equality Act. At a subsequent remedy hearing the claimant was awarded £52,348 damages.
Autism
The case of Sherbourne v N Power Ltd considered the issue of working environments. The office in which the claimant worked was open-plan with a walkway behind him which caused him to become distracted and overwhelmed. Eventually the claimant experienced a breakdown at work. The tribunal criticised the employer for “continuous management failure” to understand the claimant’s disability. The tribunal also criticised the employer for their inappropriate use of the capability process to try and dismiss a disabled employee. At a subsequent remedy hearing the claimant was awarded £34,458 damages.
Autism
It is a feature of Autism that individuals have a strong sense of justice and will be robust in pursuing complaints. In Wright v Governing Body of Cardinal Newman School the Employment Tribunal considered whether the manner of how the employee pursued complaints was something arising from Autism. The Employment Tribunal accepted that pursuing complaints “tenaciously” arose from Mr Wright’s Autism. The tribunal also accepted that some of the claimant’s behaviour was a reaction to his reduced capacity to cope with unexpected change.
Workguide 