Ryan Toghill, a former manager at a leading UK grocery chain, recently won over £45,000 in a tribunal after his employer failed to account for his ADHD during a disciplinary process. The tribunal ruled that his dismissal was handled improperly, noting that his communication style—which some managers misinterpreted as a lack of remorse—was actually related to his diagnosis.
This case reflects a broader trend of neurodivergence—an umbrella term covering ADHD, autism, and dyslexia—becoming a central issue in employment disputes. As diagnosis rates rise, many employees are seeking legal protection under the Equality Act 2010, which mandates that employers provide reasonable adjustments to assist staff with daily tasks, provided the condition substantially impacts their work.
Legal experts observe that few disputes stem from overt malice. Instead, problems usually arise from performance management systems that lack flexibility or from managers who feel untrained to support different cognitive styles. Law firms like Irwin Mitchell have reported a significant increase in tribunal cases mentioning neurodivergent conditions over the past five years.
While companies often express confidence in their inclusion efforts, many employees report a lack of psychological safety, fearing that disclosing their diagnosis could lead to bias. Some businesses are now adopting inclusive designs, such as flexible work hours and quiet zones, to support all staff regardless of their neurological profile. Experts like Professor Amanda Kirby argue that the focus should shift from a medical model toward universal workplace design to prevent the systemic exclusion of neurodivergent talent and to reduce the high unemployment rates currently observed among these groups.