Neurodiversity tribunal cases almost doubled in five years

Employment tribunal cases linked to neurodivergent conditions rose 95% in five years, revealing a growing gap between employer obligations and workplace practice. Assuming that accommodating one neurodivergent employee means all have been accommodated is a common but risky misconception.

The number of employment tribunal cases involving neurodivergent conditions has nearly doubled in five years, according to new analysis of government data by national law firm Irwin Mitchell. In 2020, HM Courts & Tribunals Service recorded 265 such cases. By 2025, that figure had risen to 517 — a 95% increase. The most recent six-month period recorded the highest employment tribunal case numbers of the entire five-year period, suggesting the trend is accelerating rather than plateauing.

Autism and ADHD now account for the largest share of claims, with autism-related cases reaching 121 in 2025 and ADHD cases climbing to 118. Dyslexia, Tourette syndrome, dyspraxia and OCD also feature consistently, with most conditions showing upward trajectories over the period.

The headline figure is striking. But the more important question for HR professionals isn't how many employment tribunal cases there are — it's why they're happening, and what they reveal about how UK employers are managing neurodivergent employees.

Why cases are rising

The instinctive explanation is that employers are discriminating more. The more accurate explanation is probably the opposite: awareness is growing, and employees are increasingly willing and able to assert their rights.

A decade ago, many neurodivergent employees didn't know they had legal protections. Many hadn't received a diagnosis. Many assumed that workplace difficulties were personal failings rather than the result of unmet employer obligations. That picture has shifted substantially. Autism and ADHD diagnoses have increased significantly in the UK over the past decade, driven partly by better clinical understanding and partly by growing public awareness. As more people receive diagnoses — or recognise their own neurodivergence without one — more understand that the Equality Act 2010 may apply to them.

Crucially, employees don't need a formal diagnosis to obtain protection. As Jenny Arrowsmith, employment partner at Irwin Mitchell, notes, if a condition has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on a person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, they are disabled under the Equality Act. This triggers the duty to make reasonable adjustments — regardless of whether a GP or psychiatrist has ever put a name to the condition.

That's a significant threshold many employers don't fully understand. An employee who struggles with sensory overload in an open-plan office, who finds ambiguous verbal instructions overwhelming, or who experiences anxiety around unpredictable schedules may be legally protected — whether or not they've ever disclosed a diagnosis or used the word neurodivergent.

The compliance gap

Irwin Mitchell's analysis points to something Neurodivergent Works has observed consistently in employer guidance: many employment tribunal cases don't arise from deliberate discrimination. They arise because employers fail to recognise their legal obligations early enough, or assume that reasonable adjustments are only required once an employee formally discloses a condition.

By the time a case reaches tribunal, the relationship has usually broken down entirely. The employee has raised concerns that weren't addressed, escalated to HR without resolution, and eventually concluded that legal action is the only remaining option. Tribunal cases are the visible end of a much longer failure. One that typically began with a manager who didn't know what reasonable adjustments were, or a HR policy that treated all employees identically regardless of individual need.

The 95% rise in cases over five years doesn't mean employers are getting worse. It means the gap between legal obligation and operational reality is becoming more visible, and employees are increasingly equipped to act on it.

What the data means in practice

For HR professionals, the Irwin Mitchell analysis carries three practical implications.

First, reasonable adjustments are not optional. They are a legal requirement under the Equality Act 2010, triggered when an employer knows or ought reasonably to know that an employee is disabled. Waiting for formal disclosure before considering adjustments is not a legally safe position. If a manager observes that an employee is struggling in ways consistent with a neurodivergent condition, the duty to consider adjustments may already apply.

Second, a one-size-fits-all approach creates risk. Two employees with ADHD will not necessarily benefit from the same adjustments. One might need a quieter workspace; another might need more structured task management. Assuming that accommodating one neurodivergent employee means all of them have been accommodated is both poor practice and a potential liability.

Third, manager training matters more than policy documents. Most employment tribunal cases involving neurodivergent conditions don't fail because the employer lacked a neurodiversity policy. They fail because line managers didn't know how to apply it — or didn't know it existed. Policies that live in handbooks but never reach the people managing day-to-day interactions with employees are not protection.

The rise in tribunal cases is, in one sense, a sign of progress: more neurodivergent employees know their rights and are willing to assert them. For employers, it's a prompt to close the gap between legal obligation and everyday practice — before that gap becomes a claim.

Read our complete guide to reasonable adjustments for neurodivergent employees