Employment law: Neurodivergence in the Workplace

Scroll through LinkedIn and you’ll see it: professionals proudly listing ADHD or autism alongside their other credentials or sharing posts about a recent diagnosis and what it’s helped them understand about themselves. Once a private matter, neurodivergence is now part of public and professional identity, especially among Gen Z and younger millennials. This growing openness is a positive step in destigmatising difference, but it also presents new challenges in the workplace.

As acceptance and awareness have risen, so too have the number of diagnoses. It means employers are navigating a new landscape – one where legal protections, performance concerns, and cultural expectations all intersect.

Once associated primarily with childhood diagnoses, conditions like ADHD and autism are now being identified in adults at unprecedented rates, particularly among under-30 Gen Z-ers.  According to a study by UCL researchers, the incidence in the UK of ADHD in adults under 30 has seen a 20-fold rise over the past two decades.

The surge has been confirmed by the first-ever NHS analysis of people with ADHD (released 29 May 2025).  Using GP records the data shows some 820,000 people now have a formal diagnosis of ADHD, involving 0.8 per cent of all adults, and 2.3 per cent of children.  However, the NHS say that the condition remains underdiagnosed, with more than half a million on NHS waiting lists for an assessment and an estimated 2.5 million people likely to have ADHD.

Autism diagnoses among adults have also soared. Recent data from the Nuffield Trust shows that more than 170,000 people with suspected autism were waiting to see a specialist in England in December 2023, the highest ever recorded and five times the level in 2019.

Experts attribute this trend to heightened public awareness, greater openness to discuss mental health, and the influence of social media platforms, where users share personal experiences and symptoms.

On TikTok, the favoured platform for Gen Z, the ADHD hashtag has more than 47 billion views and autism around 49 billion.  The platform is also known for hosting countless “tests” for autism and ADHD.  And while many may not have access to a formal diagnosis, because of long NHS waiting times, many will turn to these routes for self-diagnosis.

Other conditions becoming more commonly diagnosed, through greater understanding and testing availability, include dyslexia, which is estimated to affect ten per cent of the population, dyscalculia and dyspraxia.

And it is this wave of both self-identification and formal diagnosis that is creating complexities in the workplace. Employers are navigating the challenges of accommodating increasing number of neurodivergent employees, often without clear guidelines or prior experience.

Legal Implications for Employers

From a legal standpoint, it’s crucial to follow a fair process with any underperforming employee, particularly as many will have protection from unfair dismissal, but in the case of neurodivergent employees, additional safeguards may apply under the Equality Act 2010.

Under the Equality Act, employers are legally obliged to make “reasonable adjustments” for employees with disabilities. This duty arises when an employer knows, or could reasonably be expected to know, that an employee has a disability. Failure to comply can lead to claims of discrimination.

And while many neurodivergent individuals may not identify as ‘disabled’, the legal definition of disability is broad and can include such conditions where they have a substantial and long-term impact on day-to-day life.  Importantly, there is no requirement for a formal medical diagnosis for these protections to apply: the key factor is the impact neurodiversity has on the individual in the workplace.

Recent employment tribunal cases centred on neurodiversity highlight the importance of this legal duty and provide an insight into the type of adjustment that may need to be considered:

• Robert Watson v. Roke Manor Research Ltd (2025): Watson, a software engineer diagnosed with ADHD, faced repeated non-verbal expressions of frustration from his manager, such as sighing and exaggerated exhales. The tribunal found that these actions constituted acts of harassment and part of an ongoing pattern of behaviour by Watson’s managers. Failing to recognise the impact of ADHD upon him and their failure to offer him appropriate support, the tribunal ruled this behaviour constituted disability discrimination, demonstrating that even indirect behaviours can have a significant impact on neurodivergent employees.
• Ciaran Saunders v. Peloton Interactive UK Ltd (2025): Saunders, an autistic employee at Peloton’s London studio, experienced sensory overload due to the loud music and strong fragrances in the workplace. Despite requesting adjustments, such as a quieter work environment and scheduled breaks, Peloton did not implement changes, leading the tribunal to rule that the company had not fulfilled its duty to make reasonable adjustments.
• Wright v Cardinal Newman Catholic School (2021) involved a long-serving head of mathematics who was diagnosed with autism and atrial fibrillation. After raising multiple grievances and being offered a demoted position, which he accepted under protest, he was eventually dismissed on the grounds of an “irretrievable breakdown” in the working relationship. The tribunal found that his persistent complaints were a manifestation of his autism and that the school had failed to make reasonable adjustments. He was awarded £850,000 for unfair dismissal, victimisation, and discrimination arising from disability.
• In Kaler v Insights ESC Limited (2024) a teacher who had previously described herself as autistic was dismissed after sending a series of aggressive and threatening emails to colleagues during a pay dispute. Although she had referred to herself as an “aspie,” the school did not formally recognise her as disabled, and the tribunal criticised the employer for failing to consider and respond appropriately to her potential disability. However, the dismissal was ultimately upheld by the Employment Appeal Tribunal, which found that, while her conduct may have been linked to her neurodivergence, the seriousness of her behaviour justified termination.

Taken together, these cases highlight how complex it can be to navigate neurodivergence in the workplace, even when apparently well-structured employment procedures are in place, if such conditions are not properly understood or factored into decision-making at all levels.

The cases also underline the growing emphasis by the courts on an employer’s duty to anticipate and respond appropriately to the individual effects of neurodivergence in the workplace.

We all need to think differently and keep an open mind when reviewing individual performance – what may at first seem difficult behaviour could simply reflect a different type of information processing, and to understand that we need a different mindset. By proactively addressing the needs of neurodivergent employees, employers will not only comply with legal requirements but also foster an inclusive workplace.

Practical steps for employers

1. Create an open and inclusive culture

• Encourage open communication: Foster a workplace where employees feel safe to discuss challenges and ask for support without fear of stigma.
• Promote inclusivity: Create a culture where neurodiversity is understood and respected, and where different ways of thinking and working are valued.
• Train managers and staff: Provide regular training on neurodiversity awareness, inclusive behaviours, and legal responsibilities under the Equality Act.

2. Provide personalised support and communication

• Maintain clear, consistent communication: Use unambiguous language and provide written follow-ups or visual aids where possible.
• Encourage collaborative problem-solving: Involve the employee in identifying what support would be most helpful to them.
• Obtain expert input: Where appropriate, consider requesting an occupational health report to identify tailored adjustments and support strategies.

3. Make practical adjustments to the work environment

• Adapt the physical workspace:
• Use partitions or quiet zones to reduce distractions.
• Provide adjustable lighting or desk lamps to accommodate sensory sensitivities.
• Offer noise-cancelling headphones or other aids to manage noise levels.
• Support flexible working
• Allow home working or varied start/finish times where roles permit.
• Offer autonomy over how and when tasks are completed if outcomes remain consistent.

4. Provide assistive tools and technology

• Offer supportive equipment such as:
• Speech-to-text or text-to-speech software.
• Mind-mapping tools or daily planners.
• Dictation software or dual monitors for improved focus and processing.

For further guidance on accommodating neurodivergent employees, see ACAS Adjustments for neurodiversity and the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s resources on workplace adjustments.

This is not legal advice; it is intended to provide information of general interest about current legal issues. Mullis & Peake LLP Solicitors are not responsible for external links and websites.