Autism is among the most common conditions linked to employment tribunal cases, according to a recent analysis.
Law firm Irwin Mitchell examined government tribunal data which showed that cases linked to the broad term “neurodiversity” (which includes autism and ADHD) had almost doubled in five years.
In 2020, HM Courts and Tribunals Service recorded 265 employment tribunal cases involving such conditions. By 2025, the annual total had increased to 517 cases – a rise of around 95% over five years.
Disability discrimination in general is among the most common reasons for employment tribunal claims.
According to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, in 2024-25, disability discrimination issues were raised in 16 per cent of claims it received, compared with nine per cent the year before.
Jenny Arrowsmith, employment partner at Irwin Mitchell, said: “The steady rise in tribunal claims linked to neurodiversity should be a clear warning sign for employers. Many cases arise, not because of deliberate discrimination, but because businesses fail to recognise their legal obligations early enough.”
Arrowsmith said employers need more than a one size fits all approach, which means understanding what amounts to a disability under the Equality Act, making reasonable adjustments to support individuals and ensuring managers are trained to respond.
She added: “Employees don’t need a formal diagnosis to obtain protection. If their condition has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, they are disabled. This triggers the duty to make reasonable adjustments.”
A worker needs to give their employer some idea of the adjustments they need.
A historic case often held up as an example of a successful tribunal disability discrimination claim is Di Benedetto v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation in 2011.
Many cases arise because businesses fail to recognise their legal obligations early enough
The case involved a claim by a kitchen assistant who had a learning disability. She was called to a disciplinary hearing after an ambulance driver alleged she had spat in his drink.
Law firm Weightman’s recently said of the case: “The letter calling her to the hearing contained long words and phrases she did not understand and she was not provided with representation.”
The tribunal found clearer language should have been used in correspondence and Benedetto provided with an advocate.
