Written by 
In a recent Times employment tribunal report, a worker was awarded £12,000 after her manager dismissed her request for a quiet “breakout area” by telling her to “stop thinking outside the box” and “get back in your box.” The claimant, who is dyslexic and neurodivergent, said this seemingly innocuous phrase was deeply distressing, triggering her rejection sensitivity dysphoria and contributing to disability harassment and victimisation findings against the employer (Russell, 2026).
The decision may seem initially surprising — a casual remark leading to an award of damages — but it underscores an increasingly important point in UK employment practice: neurodiversity isn’t just a label, it’s a lived experience with legal protections that demand real understanding and meaningful adjustments.
Neurodiversity Is Not a Buzzword — It’s a Legal Reality
The term neurodiversity describes a spectrum of neurological variation, including conditions such as ADHD, autism, dyslexia, and dyspraxia. These traits are increasingly recognised as part of normal human variation rather than disorders to be “fixed” (Singer, 1999; Wikipedia, 2024). Under the Equality Act 2010, if such traits have a substantial and long-term effect on day-to-day activities, they can amount to a disability, triggering duties on employers to prevent discrimination and to make reasonable adjustments (Equality Act 2010; WorkNest, 2024).
Employment tribunal decisions reveal that UK courts are taking these obligations seriously — and that a failure to understand or act on them exposes organisations to risk.
In a high-profile case involving a global technology firm, a tribunal found that the employer discriminated against a staff member with ADHD by failing to provide ADHD awareness training for managers — training that had been explicitly recommended by occupational health. This omission was itself treated as a failure to make reasonable adjustments (Khorram v Capgemini UK Plc, 2021; Occupational Health Assessment, 2025).
Other tribunals have reached similar conclusions where dismissive or derogatory language was used toward neurodivergent employees. In one case, a colleague referring to an employee as a “weirdo” contributed to a finding of disability-related harassment and a substantial compensation award (Darwin Gray, 2023).
Employment law commentators have also noted a sharp rise in neurodiversity-related tribunal claims in recent years, particularly involving autism, ADHD and dyslexia. This trend reflects both greater awareness among employees of their rights and a continuing gap in organisational capability to respond appropriately (Irwin Mitchell, 2025).
Training Isn’t Optional — It’s a Reasonable Adjustment
One of the most significant developments in this area is tribunals recognising that neurodiversity awareness training itself can constitute a reasonable adjustment. In Khorram v Capgemini, the tribunal accepted that failing to provide basic training to colleagues and line managers — despite clear occupational health advice — contributed directly to discriminatory treatment (Swinburne Maddison, 2022).
This interpretation expands the concept of reasonable adjustments beyond physical or technical changes to include workplace culture, communication styles, and managerial understanding. It aligns closely with guidance from ACAS, which stresses that reasonable adjustments should reflect both the strengths and challenges neurodivergent employees may experience — and that failure to implement them may amount to unlawful discrimination (ACAS, 2023).
What Employers Should Do Now
If the message from tribunals seems challenging, it is also clear and actionable:
- Invest in neurodiversity awareness training for HR professionals, line managers and senior leaders. Recent case law suggests this may itself be a reasonable adjustment (Occupational Health Assessment, 2025).
- Review reasonable adjustment processes to ensure requests — such as access to quiet spaces, clarity of communication or flexible working practices — are handled sensitively and consistently (ACAS, 2023).
- Embed psychological safety by discouraging dismissive language and fostering respectful communication that recognises different cognitive and emotional responses.
- Align policy with practice. Many tribunal claims arise not from the absence of policies, but from how people behave in everyday interactions.
Ultimately, the Times case is not really about a poorly chosen phrase. It is about dignity, respect and a workplace culture that understands — and values — neurological difference. Employers who fail to take this seriously face not only wellbeing consequences for staff, but increasing legal and reputational risk.
References (Harvard style)
ACAS (2023) Reasonable adjustments for neurodiversity. Available at: https://www.acas.org.uk/reasonable-adjustments/adjustments-for-neurodiversity (Accessed: 27 January 2026).
Darwin Gray (2023) ‘Weirdo’ comment results in £17k employment tribunal award. Available at: https://www.darwingray.com/weirdo-comment-results-in-17k-employment-tribunal-award/ (Accessed: 27 January 2026).
Equality Act 2010. London: The Stationery Office.
Irwin Mitchell (2025) Sharp rise in neurodiversity-related employment tribunal claims. Available at: https://www.irwinmitchell.com/news-and-insights/newsandmedia/2025/august/sharp-rise-in-neurodiversity-related-employment-tribunal-claims (Accessed: 27 January 2026).
Khorram v Capgemini UK Plc (2021) Employment Tribunal, Case No. 2201867/2020.
Occupational Health Assessment (2025) Courts expect large employers to provide neurodiversity training. Available at: https://occupationalhealthassessment.com/2025/07/28/courts-expect-large-employers-to-provide-neurodiversity-training/ (Accessed: 27 January 2026).
Russell, H. (2026) ‘Worker with “rejection sensitivity” wins £12k payout’, The Times, 27 January.
Singer, J. (1999) ‘Why can’t you be normal for once in your life?’. In: Corker, M. and French, S. (eds.) Disability Discourse. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Wikipedia (2024) Neurodiversity. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodiversity (Accessed: 27 January 2026).
WorkNest (2024) Do ADHD and autism qualify as a disability under the Equality Act 2010? Available at: https://worknest.com/blog/do-adhd-and-autism-qualify-as-a-disability-understanding-the-equality-act-2010-and-new-case-law/ (Accessed: 27 January 2026).