21 April 2026 
Emma Walton-Pond, Communications Officer
There have been a sharp rise in neurodiversity-related claims in the Employment Tribunals.
Neurodiversity is being recognised and discussed in the workplace more than ever. This is a positive and important change; however, as awareness of neurodiversity grows and individuals become more confident in asserting their rights, it is likely that such issues will continue to feature in workplace disputes and Employment Tribunal claims.
With one in seven people in the UK estimated to be neurodivergent, employers face growing legal and reputational risks if they fail to make reasonable adjustments. Higher education providers face particular challenges in this area. Large and diverse workforces, complex management structures and high‑pressure academic environments can all increase the likelihood of issues arising.
What does the law say?
Neurodiversity is not a protected characteristic in its own right. However, many conditions, including autism, ADHD, anxiety and depression can amount to a disability under the Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010) provided that they meet the definition of "disability" under the EA 2010, i.e. they have a "substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities".
This is assessed on a case-by-case basis but the threshold is relatively low and it is important to note that the effects of medication, treatment or coping strategies are disregarded when assessing whether the definition is met.
Recent case law shows that the Employment Tribunals are increasingly willing to recognise neurodivergent conditions as disabilities based on their real‑world impact, even where a formal diagnosis is pending or absent. Therefore, duties may arise even where an individual does not have, or has not declared, a diagnosis if the employer knows, or could reasonably be expected to know, that an individual is disabled.
As you will be well aware, where an individual is disabled within the meaning of the EA 2010 higher education providers must not discriminate against them. This includes protection from direct and indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation, but it also includes discrimination arising from a disability which relates to an individual being treated unfavourably because of something connected to their disability, rather than because of the disability itself. There is also a positive duty to make reasonable adjustments where a disabled individual is placed at a substantial disadvantage because of their disability.
Key considerations for higher education providers
Determining whether to treat someone as disabled
An employer does not need to be told that an employee is disabled before a duty arises. If the employer knows or could be reasonably expected to know that a person has a disability, that will be sufficient to engage the EA 2010. As a result, it is important for managers to take a proactive and informed approach to identify potential disability-related issues, rather than waiting for formal disclosure from employees and to consider, for example, whether proactive adjustments can be made. We encourage employers to err on the side of caution in these cases.
Having said that, where it is clear that an employee does not have a disability, there is no statutory obligation to make reasonable adjustments and employers should feel able to push back on unreasonable requests.
Reasonable adjustments
Reasonable adjustments continue to be a key source of litigation. The duty to make reasonable adjustments arises where a disabled person is placed at a substantial disadvantage by an employer's provision, criterion or practice (PCP), a physical feature or an employer's failure to provide an auxiliary aid. PCP is defined broadly and can include formal and informal practices, policies and arrangements of the employer. It can also include one-off decisions.
The adjustment must be reasonable to make in the circumstances. What is “reasonable” depends on a number of factors, including the nature of the adjustment, whether the adjustment would reduce the disadvantage, how practicable it is, the resources available to the organisation as a whole and the degree of disruption involved. Cost is relevant but not decisive, and many adjustments related to neurodiversity - such as changes to communication style, working structure or processes - may be low cost.
Tribunals expect employers to engage proactively. This includes consulting with the employee, understanding what the adjustment is intended to achieve and implementing agreed adjustments properly. Delays, poor communication or a failure to apply adjustments consistently (particularly by line managers) are frequently criticised by the Employment Tribunals.
The duty applies across the employment lifecycle. Adjustments may be required not only to day‑to‑day working arrangements, but also to recruitment, performance management, disciplinary procedures and other formal processes.
Positive management practices
Alongside reasonable adjustments, recent caselaw highlights the importance of management approach. Everyday interactions, including tone of voice, “banter” and even non‑verbal behaviour, have been found capable of amounting to harassment.
Neurodivergent individuals may communicate, process information or respond to stress differently. Without appropriate awareness, these differences can be misinterpreted and Tribunals have recognised that comments framed as jokes, dismissive reactions or suggestions that someone is being deliberately difficult can be deeply undermining and amount to harassment.
Higher education providers are not prevented from addressing performance or conduct issues involving neurodivergent staff. However, difficulties arise where action is taken without exploring whether there is a link to disability, and without considering reasonable adjustments, or where sanctions are disproportionate. In some cases, it may also be a reasonable adjustment to adapt the process itself, not just the role.
Effective training or managers is therefore critical. Managers should be able to recognise potential indicators, have appropriate conversations at an early stage and avoid assumptions about behaviour. Clear record‑keeping, including documenting concerns raised, knowledge at the relevant time, steps taken and decision‑making, is also consistently important.
Final thoughts
Neurodiversity‑related claims present both a legal risk and an opportunity for higher education providers. Institutions that engage early, take an individualised and informed approach, and invest in inclusive management practices are better placed to minimise disputes and support neurodivergent staff.
Recent cases underline the importance of proactive engagement, effective and timely adjustments, and thoughtful management of everyday interactions, performance concerns and formal processes. Taken together, these measures are central not only to meeting legal obligations, but also to fostering inclusive and supportive workplaces across the higher education sector.
Kathleen Heycock, Partner and Rosanna Gregory, Associate
