By Maksym Misichenko · BBC Business ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel agrees that the rise in neurodiversity-related tribunal claims poses significant operational risks and potential productivity friction for UK employers, with a key risk being risk-averse hiring due to litigation uncertainty. However, there's no consensus on whether this is a net negative (bearish) or an opportunity for productivity and retention gains (bullish).
Risk: Risk-averse hiring due to litigation uncertainty
Opportunity: Proactive hiring programs that match neurodivergent skills to roles
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
Taking one of the UK's biggest grocery chains to an employment tribunal was something that Ryan Toghill says almost took over his life.
"It was all I could think about for 18 months and more," he says.
The deputy store manager at Lidl, who'd told his bosses he'd been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), was called to a disciplinary meeting after breaking company rules by using equipment he hadn't been trained to use. After that meeting, Ryan was dismissed for gross misconduct.
He successfully appealed the decision and was offered a lower-paid role. He rejected it and took his case to a tribunal. Eventually, he was awarded more than £45,000 when the judge found his former employer hadn't fully taken his ADHD diagnosis into account during the disciplinary process.
The judgement found reasonable adjustments during the process hadn't been offered to him, such as additional breaks.
He'd been described by a manager as showing "a lack of remorse," something the tribunal found was clearly linked with his communication differences associated with having ADHD.
"I don't show a lot of emotions," Ryan explains. "I could be incredibly happy, angry, upset, or remorseful, and my facial expressions and tone of voice would essentially remain the same."
The tribunal upheld part of his claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and a failure to make reasonable adjustments. Lidl says it's "committed to ensuring that everyone receives the reasonable adjustments, clear communication and support they need to thrive."
Campaigners, lawyers and HR teams say cases like this highlight a shift that businesses should be paying attention to.
Thousands of people have been diagnosed as neurodivergent in the last few years, an umbrella term that covers autism, ADHD and other conditions such as dyslexia and Tourette's syndrome.
Since the pandemic in particular, diagnosis rates for ADHD and autism have been rising, and they're featuring more regularly in disputes in employment tribunals.
While many people who are neurodivergent don't consider themselves disabled, the Equality Act 2010 may give them protection by recognising their condition as a disability, regardless of whether they have a formal diagnosis. They're entitled to reasonable adjustments if they can show that their condition has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to do normal day-to-day activities. These are widely defined and aren't limited to work tasks.
Cases going to tribunal can be around employers not making those adjustments, but they can also be about how people are treated at work.
For example, a 2025 tribunal found a software engineer who had ADHD had faced discrimination because a manager sighed and made other expressions of "non-verbal frustration" towards him.
"What we're seeing in tribunals is rarely the result of deliberate discrimination," says Lutfur Ali, a diversity and inclusion adviser at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the professional body for HR.
"Cases commonly stem from reasonable adjustments being overlooked, performance processes that were never designed with different thinking styles in mind, and managers lacking confidence because they haven't been given the training or the time to have the right conversations."
So, while awareness of neurodivergence has never been higher, why are more cases like this ending up in the legal system? And are businesses struggling to keep up with the needs of the workforce?
Irwin Mitchell is one of the biggest law firms in the UK, and its lawyers say their caseloads increasingly include grievances linked to neurodivergence at work.
Using the Ministry of Justice's online judgments database, the company identified 517 employment tribunal cases mentioning neurodivergent conditions in 2025, up from 265 in 2020. The most commonly cited conditions were autism and ADHD.
The live database is limited and gives only a partial picture. The Ministry of Justice says the figures should not be considered official statistics.
Diagnosis rates of ADHD and autism have soared, and waiting lists for assessments on the NHS in England are at record levels, with lists even closing in some areas due to the huge demand. Irwin Mitchell says those long waits have an impact on workplaces too. "Anecdotally, we're seeing a lot of people that are either threatening to bring claims or actually bringing claims, that don't have formal diagnoses," says Jo Moseley, a legal director at the firm.
Research from University College London suggests nearly a 20-fold increase in the number of UK adults diagnosed with ADHD between 2000 and 2018. Diagnosis rates for autism were eight times higher in 2018 than in 1998.
Despite these rises in diagnosis and referrals, some studies suggest both ADHD and autism are actually underdiagnosed.
In June, the Lancet Regional Health Europe journal published research suggesting that while around 1.2% of adults in England had an ADHD diagnosis, international prevalence data estimates it affects 3-5% of people. The authors of the study said this indicates it could still be under-diagnosed, particularly in older age groups.
Similarly, research by King's College London last year suggested that around 90% of autistic people over 40 remain undiagnosed.
Diagnosis levels aside, there has been a huge increase in awareness of the challenges neurodivergent people can face - whether it's in communication preferences, personal organisation, or sensory needs. In workplaces, many describe "masking," a term which means trying to hide their traits in order to fit in - something which can put a huge strain on the person's wellbeing.
"Society is playing catch-up," says Ben Branson, an entrepreneur who runs a charity called The Hidden 20%, which campaigns for better understanding of neurodivergence. He was diagnosed with autism in 2022.
"The recognition of adult neurodivergence has exploded," he says. "But we have always been here, we are just not hiding anymore, and there are millions of people finally understanding why they kept moving jobs, why they didn't fit, why they kept burning out and why they felt so exhausted, who are no longer willing to struggle in silence."
This year's City and Guilds Foundation's Neurodiversity Index found that while employers think they're "doing better" when it comes to inclusion, neurodivergent employees say they are seeing only small improvements.
The study found employers' confidence levels in their own "neurodivergent readiness" averaged between 70-75%. However, the proportion of employees who reported feeling psychologically safe telling their employer about their diagnosis, and who believed their organisation understood the impact of their condition, was between 32-38%.
This disconnect between managers and staff is something employment lawyer Jodie Hill is familiar with. Her firm, Thrive Law, specialises in workplace wellbeing and works with both employees and businesses. She set it up in 2018 after getting her own ADHD diagnosis at the age of 35.
"In the last three months, I've seen more than I've ever seen before in terms of enquiries," she says.
So, what are some employers doing that leads to successful action being taken against them? Hill says one thing that comes up a lot is bosses asking for proof of a formal diagnosis, when this isn't the legal test. Another issue can be an employer looking to dismiss someone over performance before considering a possible disability. Both of which could leave them exposed to claims of discrimination.
In the training sessions she carries out for businesses, she says she hears from the employer's perspective that it can feel like "every other conversation is about people wanting support".
Fears over cost, and concern that doing something for one member of staff means they have to do it for all of them, can lead to what Hill describes as an "initial dismissiveness" from some employers. But that, she says, comes from a lack of understanding over what can be an "internal and invisible" struggle.
"There's a mindset from employers that it's very linear… and that all the symptoms are the same every day," she says.
Another challenge can be determining what constitutes a "reasonable adjustment," a sticking point which can be what ends up being decided in a tribunal.
Hill says some employers "don't know where to start" and wrongly assume that making reasonable adjustments means doing whatever the employee asks.
Some tribunals have shown the limits of what's "reasonable." In one case, an autistic claimant had requested extensive changes to the recruitment process at the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), including simplified questions and advance access to test questions. The JAC had already offered extra time and assistance from a friend and denied the extra requests. When it went to tribunal, the judge found the adjustments the person had asked for were "clearly going beyond what was necessary or reasonable".
While there isn't a check list for employers, lawyers stress that they have to be able to justify why they're saying no to something, and show they've looked at alternative options.
Jo Moseley from law firm Irwin Mitchell explains that when it comes to judging what is "reasonable", a tribunal would take into account factors like the person's role, and the size of the business.
"Big employers will certainly be expected to do more than small employers," she says, stressing that many adjustments can cost nothing or very little, such as looking at how meetings are structured, offering regular breaks, or somewhere quiet to work.
In one tribunal last year, the pub chain Greene King was found to have failed to make reasonable adjustments for a chef who was dyslexic and struggled with reading orders.
He'd asked for a Bluetooth headset. The tribunal found that the company's failure to provide this adjustment had led to his employment ending. He was awarded £24,000. A spokesperson for Greene King said it respected the tribunal's decision and that it was committed to upholding the highest standards of employee welfare.
"Ultimately, the purpose of an adjustment is to facilitate good performance, not to lower the standard of performance," says Prof Nancy Doyle, an occupational psychologist.
"Employers are anxious of challenge, anxious about saying or doing the wrong thing," she adds.
She explains that employers are not expected to keep someone in a job where they're risking safety or delivering less than their peers, but that in some workplaces, managers end up "covering for neurodivergent staff," leaving them in a situation where they are "dependent on kindness, which may ebb away over time."
Daniel Rickman, who runs glazing business Structura, decided not to wait for individuals to ask for adjustments - but instead offer them to all staff.
The company introduced flexible working, fidget toys in meeting rooms, and red or green "busy lights" on desks, that allow staff to indicate whether they're happy to be disturbed.
He says it means the business is "getting the best out of everybody" and he is retaining skilled staff. However, showing the polarisation around the topic, he says he has also been criticised for being "woke."
As awareness of neurodiversity has grown, some businesses such as Microsoft and BAE Systems have created targeted hiring programmes to attract neurodivergent candidates, aware of the skills they can bring to their organisations.
Making neurodiversity a part of how workplaces are designed is what Prof Amanda Kirby believes is needed.
She's heading up the government's expert panel, set up to look at improving the job chances of neurodivergent people, and says a "medical" model of providing adjustments is inadequate.
"Nobody fits into neat boxes", she says, adding that training focused on doing x for dyslexia or y for ADHD is "never going to work."
"It's not neurodiversity over here, mental health over here, unemployment over there," she says, pointing out that those who are not in employment, education or training, and those moving through the justice system are less likely to have a diagnosis and more likely to be neurodivergent.
Kirby's report is yet to be published, but it's part of the government's wider plans to tackle stubborn levels of economic inactivity that remain higher than before the pandemic.
A Government report in 2024 found autistic graduates are twice as likely to be unemployed after 15 months as non-disabled graduates, and last year, the government's ADHD Taskforce estimated that "unsupported" ADHD was costing the economy £17bn a year.
The latest official figures show the number of people receiving Personal Independent Payments topping 4 million, the number of those with ADHD as their main condition was around 100,000 in April, up by 30,000 in the last two years. Just over half of these were aged 16 to 24.
The government is investing £3.5bn into personalised employment support for disabled people and those with health conditions in order to address problems with employment levels.
Why the UK is dithering over what to do about e-scooters - Published1 day ago
Why Andy Burnham will find it so tricky to unite Britain - Published3 days ago
The hidden cost of the night shift and how to sleep it off - Published5 days ago
A Department for Work and Pensions spokesperson told the BBC: "For too long disabled people and those with a neurodiversity condition have been left behind, ignored, and not given the support they need to get into work."
As well as costly, these tribunal claims are becoming increasingly drawn out as the UK's tribunal system creaks.
Figures from the Ministry of Justice put the number of open claims at a record high of 531,000.
Jenna Ide, a partner and employment law specialist at Thomas Mansfield Solicitors, says that the backlog adds pressure on employers.
"It can take several years for a case to reach a final hearing," she says. "In the meantime, employers are often required to make difficult judgement calls without knowing where a tribunal would ultimately draw the line," she adds.
Law firms say some tribunals are now being listed for 2030 and the backlog is expected to grow with the Employment Rights Act. From January 2027, this will give workers protection against unfair dismissal after six months instead of only after two years.
"Most people, even conservatively, think that there's going to be a huge explosion just in unfair dismissal claims," says Irwin Mitchell's Jo Moseley.
Not only could this backlog create problems in terms of access to justice, but according to Kirby, rising numbers of tribunals could have another troubling effect.
"Some employers will go, 'these people' are potentially going to cause us lots of problems," she says, adding that this could
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"Rising tribunal frequency, diagnostic inflation, and tribunal backlogs to 2030 will materially increase employment-risk premia and compliance costs for UK mid-cap retailers before productivity gains materialise."
The article frames rising ADHD/autism diagnoses and tribunal cases (£45k Lidl award, Greene King £24k) as a workplace rewiring that employers must accommodate via reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act. Tribunal mentions jumped from 265 in 2020 to 517 in 2025; economic cost of unsupported ADHD estimated at £17bn/yr. Yet it underplays the diagnostic surge (20x for ADHD 2000-2018) coinciding with TikTok-driven self-diagnosis, NHS waiting-list collapse, and potential over-medicalisation of normal variance. Employers face open-ended 'invisible' demands with little checklist, while tribunal backlogs stretch to 2030 and the 2027 Employment Rights Act will flood the system further. Productivity friction and legal risk are real; blanket 'neurodiversity inclusion' rhetoric risks ignoring performance trade-offs and safety in roles like retail or manufacturing.
The strongest case against is that genuine neurodivergence remains under-diagnosed in older cohorts per Lancet and King's College data; low-cost adjustments (quiet spaces, structured meetings) demonstrably raise output and retention with negligible downside for large employers, while the £17bn economic cost already reflects presenteeism and burnout that proactive policies can claw back.
"The upcoming change to unfair dismissal protections will turn neurodiversity awareness from an HR initiative into a major, systemic litigation risk for high-turnover industries."
The surge in neurodiversity-related tribunal claims represents a significant, underpriced operational risk for UK mid-cap and retail firms. With the Employment Rights Act lowering the threshold for unfair dismissal claims to six months by 2027, the 'litigation tax' on HR departments is set to balloon. The article correctly identifies the backlog, but misses the secondary effect: risk-averse hiring. If firms perceive neurodivergent candidates as 'litigation liabilities,' we will see a decline in labor market fluidity and a rise in 'defensive HR' costs. Companies like Lidl or Greene King are just the tip of the iceberg; expect higher SG&A expenses across the retail and hospitality sectors as they scramble to overhaul management training to avoid costly tribunal payouts.
The rise in claims may actually be a leading indicator of better productivity, as firms that successfully integrate neurodivergent talent through reasonable adjustments often capture significant cognitive diversity premiums.
"Rising neurodiversity tribunal cases reflect a broken court system and diagnosis catch-up, not a workplace crisis—but the backlog will perversely incentivize hiring discrimination against neurodivergent candidates by making litigation risk the dominant cost factor."
This article frames neurodiversity as a workplace crisis requiring systemic redesign, but conflates three separate problems: rising diagnosis rates (partly catching up on historical underdiagnosis), tribunal backlog (a court system failure, not an employer competence failure), and genuine accommodation gaps. The data is alarming—517 cases in 2025 vs 265 in 2020—but the Ministry of Justice explicitly warns these aren't official statistics. The article implies employers are systematically hostile, yet cites examples (Microsoft, BAE, Structura) of successful integration. The real risk isn't neurodivergent employees; it's the 531,000-case tribunal backlog creating perverse incentives: employers may avoid hiring neurodivergent candidates precisely because litigation uncertainty is now the dominant cost, not accommodation.
The article may overstate employer negligence: most adjustments cited (quiet spaces, flexible hours, breaks) cost little, suggesting the problem is training and awareness, not structural hostility. Conversely, the tribunal explosion could reflect litigious behavior among newly diagnosed adults seeking retroactive compensation rather than genuine discrimination.
"Inclusive neurodiversity practices are a structural productivity and retention tailwind for large employers and the HR tech/services ecosystem, not just a compliance cost."
While the piece paints neurodivergence as an expanding legal risk for UK employers, the bigger story may be a productivity and retention opportunity. Diagnoses are rising, but so are supports that unlock talent, not just litigation risk. The numbers cited (517 tribunal mentions in 2025) are tiny relative to total workforce and don’t prove mismanagement everywhere; they may reflect better access to justice and clearer rights. The real payoff for firms lies in low-cost adjustments (structure of meetings, breaks, quiet spaces) and proactive hiring programs that match skills to roles. The risk is misapplication or over-caution that stifles performance.
The strongest counter is that tribunal data could be noisy and ND-related claims may simply mirror broader labor-market stress or heightened legal activity, meaning the so-called opportunity could be overstated and compliance costs could rise faster than productivity gains.
"Backlog and new legislation will raise short-term SG&A but compress the £17bn productivity drag via faster low-cost accommodation rollout."
Gemini's 'litigation tax' and risk-averse hiring thesis is compelling but ignores the counter-cyclical dynamic: the 2027 Act plus backlog will raise defensive HR costs yet simultaneously accelerate adoption of cheap, standardised adjustments that Claude notes already boost retention. The £17bn unsupported-ADHD cost Grok cites likely shrinks faster under mandated training than under voluntary programmes.
"Rising litigation will trigger insurance-driven compliance mandates that prioritize risk avoidance over genuine productivity gains."
Gemini and Claude focus on the legal 'litigation tax,' but both overlook the insurance industry's likely response. As tribunal claims rise, expect Employment Practices Liability Insurance (EPLI) premiums to spike and underwriting standards to tighten. This creates a hidden cost: firms will be forced to implement rigid, auditor-friendly 'compliance checklists' that satisfy insurers but destroy the very flexibility required to make neurodivergent hiring actually productive. The 'checklist' is the real enemy of performance here.
"EPLI premiums will rise, but insurers will reward outcomes over compliance theater—the real cost is poor implementation by firms that don't match neurodivergent talent to roles."
Gemini's EPLI premium spike is real, but the 'rigid checklist' critique assumes insurers will demand box-ticking over outcomes. Evidence suggests the opposite: EPLI underwriters increasingly reward *measurable retention and productivity gains* from neurodivergent hires because claims data shows they're lower-risk long-term. The compliance cost isn't the checklist—it's firms that implement checklists *without* genuine role-fit analysis. That's a training failure, not an insurance failure.
"EPLI dynamics will hinge on measurable ROI for neurodivergent programs, not box-ticking; backlog alone won’t dictate outcomes."
Gemini overstates the certainty of EPLI-driven rigidity: premiums rise, yes, but underwriters may reward evidence-based ROI from neurodivergent hires. The real risk is the backlog and six-month dismissal threshold driving a defensive HR stance, which could chill hiring of neurodivergent candidates unless programs prove clear productivity gains. A practical test will be insurers favoring outcomes (retention, performance) over box-ticking; anything less risks stifling innovation in roles with cognitive diversity.
The panel agrees that the rise in neurodiversity-related tribunal claims poses significant operational risks and potential productivity friction for UK employers, with a key risk being risk-averse hiring due to litigation uncertainty. However, there's no consensus on whether this is a net negative (bearish) or an opportunity for productivity and retention gains (bullish).
Proactive hiring programs that match neurodivergent skills to roles
Risk-averse hiring due to litigation uncertainty