Neurodiversity is no longer a niche topic in HR. Claims involving conditions such as ADHD, autism, dyslexia and dyspraxia are rising sharply at Employment Tribunal, and many of those claims centre on a failure to make reasonable adjustments. Recent analysis suggests a significant increase in tribunal decisions involving neurodiverse conditions since 2020, which means employers who do not adapt risk legal, financial and reputational damage.
For employers who want to get this right, the focus should be on understanding the legal duty, listening to employees and designing work in a way that allows different brains to thrive. This is not only about avoiding claims. It is about building a truly inclusive, high performing workforce.
Understanding the legal duty to make reasonable adjustments
Under the Equality Act 2010, employers must make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees and job applicants where a provision, criterion or practice, a physical feature or the absence of auxiliary aids places them at a substantial disadvantage compared with people who are not disabled. Neurodivergent conditions can fall within the legal definition of disability when they have a substantial and long term impact on day to day activities such as reading, concentrating or processing information.
Crucially, the duty to make reasonable adjustments can arise even without a formal medical diagnosis. If an employer knows, or could reasonably be expected to know, that an employee has difficulties which may amount to a disability, they should explore adjustments. Waiting for a formal label before acting is risky and can be experienced by the individual as dismissive or obstructive.
What counts as neurodiversity in the workplace
Neurodiversity is an umbrella term covering a range of cognitive differences. These include autism spectrum conditions, ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia, dyscalculia and others. Each person’s profile is unique. One autistic employee may need quiet space and structured communication while another may be very comfortable in busy open plan environments but struggle with last minute changes.
The key message for employers is that labels are less important than impact. Instead of assuming that all people with a particular diagnosis have the same needs, the law expects employers to look at the specific disadvantages faced by the individual in their role and to consider adjustments that could remove or reduce those disadvantages.
Practical examples of reasonable adjustments
Reasonable adjustments for neurodiverse employees will vary, but common examples include changes to communication, environment, workload and processes. That might mean giving written agendas and clear follow up notes after meetings, allowing more time to absorb information or respond, or offering alternatives to phone calls for employees who find verbal communication difficult.
Other adjustments might involve providing assistive technology such as speech to text or text to speech tools, noise cancelling headphones, screen filters or larger monitors. Some employees benefit from flexible start and finish times, the option to work in a quieter area of the office, or the ability to work from home for part of the week. For many roles, breaking tasks into smaller steps with clear priorities and deadlines can make performance expectations more manageable.
Training is also increasingly recognised as a reasonable adjustment. In one recent case concerning an employee with ADHD, a tribunal accepted that neurodiversity awareness training for managers and colleagues could be a reasonable adjustment because it would have helped the team understand how best to support their colleague.
Case study Moore v Greene King Retail Services Limited
A recent Employment Tribunal decision involving a dyslexic chef illustrates how failing to implement simple adjustments can lead directly to liability. In Moore v Greene King Retail Services Limited, the claimant worked as a kitchen chef and had openly explained at interview that he had dyslexia and could not easily read or write. Despite this disclosure, his employment ended after he struggled to read customer orders from a kitchen screen.
The employee suggested a practical solution. He proposed using a Bluetooth earpiece linked to the system so that orders could be read aloud, allowing him to perform the role effectively. Occupational health later identified a wireless headset as a suitable adjustment, yet the employer did not implement it and removed him from the rota. The tribunal found that the failure to provide this relatively low cost adjustment led to the loss of his job and amounted to disability discrimination. He was awarded more than twenty four thousand pounds in compensation. Herrington Carmichael
You can read a detailed discussion of the case in Herrington Carmichael’s article on the dyslexic chef tribunal win
Case study Moore v Greene King Retail Services Limited reasonable adjustments for neuro diverse employees
For employers, the lessons are clear. When an employee discloses a neurodivergent condition and asks for support, that conversation must be taken seriously, documented carefully and followed by timely action. Dismissing suggestions without proper exploration, or allowing assessments to gather dust, is likely to be viewed very negatively by a tribunal.
Creating an inclusive culture beyond legal minimum
Although the Equality Act provides the legal framework, a tick box approach is not enough. The most successful organisations treat neurodiversity as part of their broader inclusion and talent strategy. That starts with leadership messaging that openly welcomes neurodiverse talent and training for managers so they can hold supportive conversations about performance, mental health and adjustments.
Recruitment and promotion processes should also be reviewed. Timed online tests, group assessment centres and competency questions based on hypothetical scenarios can all disadvantage some neurodivergent candidates if there is no flexibility. Adjustments in this space might include providing questions in advance, allowing extra time, accepting written rather than verbal responses or offering alternative exercises that still measure the core competencies required for the role.
Internally, HR and line managers should work together to build a culture in which employees feel safe to disclose differences and ask for support. Clear policies, visible role models and regular communication about available adjustments can reduce stigma and confusion. Data from tribunals shows that many claims arise not because an employer refuses every adjustment, but because communication breaks down and employees feel disbelieved or punished for raising concerns.
How Penerley can support your organisation
For employers, the question is no longer whether to make reasonable adjustments for neurodiverse employees, but how to do so in a way that is practical, proportionate and aligned with business goals. The law expects you to be proactive, to listen carefully and to justify your decisions. Your people expect even more than that. They want workplaces where different ways of thinking are recognised as strengths.
At Penerley we work with employers, HR teams and business leaders to help them understand their legal duties and turn them into workable everyday practices. Whether you need a review of your policies and contracts, training for managers on neurodiversity and reasonable adjustments, or support with a complex individual case, we can guide you through each step.
If you would like to discuss how to strengthen your approach to neurodiversity and reasonable adjustments, contact Penerley today to speak with our team. Together we can create workplaces where neurodiverse employees are supported to perform at their best and where your organisation is confident it is meeting both its legal and ethical responsibilities.
