The Rise Neurodiversity Employment Tribunal Risk
In the last two years, the UK has seen a sharp rise in neurodiversity employment tribunals. From autism and ADHD to dyslexia and Tourette’s, individuals across the neurodiversity spectrum are increasingly standing up for their rights and holding organisations accountable.
In one recent year alone, over 100 tribunal claims referenced a neurodivergent condition. Payouts have reached six figures. And many employers never saw it coming.
The good news? These disputes are largely preventable. But only if organisations take neuroinclusion seriously – not just as a moral imperative, but as a legal and operational one too.
Here’s what every HR, DEI, and leadership team needs to know.
increase in tribunals in the last four years, with 102 cases raised in 2024 relating to neurodiversity
of UK employers have been involved in an employment tribunal relating to neurodiversity
The good news? These disputes are largely preventable. But only if organisations take neuroinclusion seriously – not just as a moral imperative, but as a legal and operational one too.
Here’s what every HR, DEI, and leadership team needs to know.
The 5 Most Common Causes of Neurodiversity Employment Tribunals
-
Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments
Employers have a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees – which includes most neurodivergent conditions under the Equality Act 2010. This could mean adjusting communication styles, job duties, working hours, or the environment.
When that doesn’t happen? It’s often the trigger for legal action.
Why it’s common: Many disputes arise when employers either do not recognise an employee’s neurodivergence or do not take adequate steps to support them. A lack of training or awareness often leads to managers insisting on standard procedures that inadvertently exclude neurodiverse staff. For example, requiring all job applicants to use a rigid online form, or expecting an autistic employee to phone in for sickness absence despite their communication difficulties, have both been found to breach this duty.
Case in point: An autistic job applicant was denied the option to answer questions orally rather than online – the tribunal found this was a failure to accommodate his needs.
-
Harassment and Inappropriate Comments
Jokes, nicknames, and “banter” can quickly cross the line – especially when they relate to someone’s neurodivergent traits. If they create a hostile or humiliating environment, they count as harassment under the Equality Act.
Why it’s common: Neurodivergent individuals may behave or communicate in ways that neurotypical colleagues find “different”. Without proper training and inclusive culture, managers or coworkers sometimes react by belittling or patronising comments. Even jokes made “in jest” about someone being “odd” or not normal can be deeply offensive and legally actionable. Research indicate around 1 in 5 neurodivergent employees report harassment or discrimination at work, reflecting a widespread problem.
Example: An autistic employee won £17,000 after his manager jokingly referred to him as a “weirdo” in a team meeting. Even “friendly” jabs aren’t exempt from the law.
-
Discrimination Arising from Disability
If an employee’s behaviour or performance issues stem from their neurodivergence, and they’re penalised without reasonable justification, that’s unlawful and could result in neurodiversity employment tribunals. Employers must show they’ve explored alternative support – not jumped straight to discipline.
Why it’s common: Neurodivergent workers might have traits (e.g. difficulty with social interaction, impulsivity, literal communication style, time management challenges) that occasionally conflict with workplace norms. Employers sometimes react with warnings, disciplinary action or dismissal without appreciating that the “problem” is a manifestation of a disability. Even if the employer did not directly intend to discriminate, the Equality Act can hold them liable for the consequences of their actions. This type of claim has risen as tribunals recognise that only a loose causal link is needed between the disability and the conduct in question.
Case: A dyslexic manager who blurted out an inappropriate phrase during training was dismissed. The tribunal found his condition caused the outburst – and the employer had failed to consider reasonable alternatives to dismissal.
-
Unfair or Constructive Dismissal
Many disputes escalate when employers ignore neurodivergence during capability or conduct processes. Some employees feel forced to resign due to lack of support – others are dismissed without fair process or understanding of their condition.
Why it’s common: Dismissal is often the end-stage of a breakdown in the employment relationship. If an employer mishandles a neurodivergent worker’s performance or misbehaviour (failing to adjust or understand them), matters can escalate to termination. Given that neurodivergent conditions are now better understood, tribunals scrutinise such dismissals closely – was the employee actually fired for disability-related reasons? Did the employer attempt support before resorting to sacking? If the answer is no, not only might that be discriminatory, it is likely procedurally unfair under general employment law. Furthermore, some employers unfortunately react negatively when an employee discloses a condition or files a complaint, leading to dismissal in retaliation (which might be automatically unfair or victimisation under The Equality Act).
Notably: One autistic teacher was awarded £850,000 after being unfairly dismissed – the tribunal ruled his school had failed to consider how his condition contributed to the situation.
-
Victimisation After Raising Concerns
Employees have the right to disclose a condition or complain about discrimination – and they’re protected from retaliation. Punishing someone for speaking up (even indirectly) is victimisation – and often leads to the biggest payouts.
Why it’s common: Unfortunately, some employers become defensive or hostile when disability issues are raised. A neurodivergent individual might raise a grievance about inappropriate comments or ask for adjustments; if the employer responds by labeling them a troublemaker or accelerating disciplinary action, that’s unlawful. Victimisation claims often arise alongside the main discrimination claims – e.g. an employee alleges disability discrimination, then finds themselves subjected to unfair criticism or terminated shortly after, suggesting retaliatory motive. Tribunals take victimisation seriously, as it undermines the enforcement of equality rights. Even if the original complaint of discrimination is not ultimately proven, any retaliation for making it is itself illegal.
Real-world example: A neurodivergent employee was dismissed after refusing to withdraw a tribunal claim. The dismissal was ruled unlawful, and the organisation was ordered to pay significant damages.
Why Neurodiversity Employment Tribunals Keep Happening
Most of these cases that lead to neurodiversity employment tribunals aren’t caused by bad intentions – but by blind spots:
- Lack of neurodiversity training for managers and HR
- Rigid processes that don’t allow for individual needs
- Inconsistent adjustments or outdated assumptions
- Fear or confusion around disclosure and diagnosis
- Treating everyone “the same” instead of equitably
As awareness of neurodiversity grows, so too does the expectation – and the legal requirement – to create inclusive, accessible workplaces.
How to Avoid Becoming the Next Neurodiversity Tribunal Headline
The law is clear. The risks are real. But so are the solutions.
Here’s where to start:
- Audit your policies and culture for neuroinclusion gaps
- Train all managers on supporting neurodivergent staff
- Build flexible systems for adjustments and disclosure
- Empower employees - don’t penalise them for speaking up
At NeuroBridge®, we help organisations go beyond compliance and create systems that truly support neurodivergent talent.
Our Neurodiversity Inclusion Support (NIS™) System includes:
- Practical tools for adjustments, communication, and performance
- Manager training and video modules
- HR process templates
- Accredited frameworks and internal campaigns
Because preventing tribunal risk isn’t about box-ticking, it’s about embedding inclusion into every part of your culture.
Take the First Step
Proactive neuroinclusion doesn’t just reduce risk – it builds stronger, more future-ready organisations.
Download our free HR Leader’s Guide: “Protecting Your Organisation from Tribunal Risk”.
Understand key legal risks related to neurodivergence in the workplace
Identify common gaps in policies, processes, and culture
Take clear steps to protect your organisation and create a safer, more inclusive environment
