Supporting Neurodivergent Employees: Kindness, Clarity & Getting the Work Done

The modern workplace includes people who think, communicate and behave in different ways. In reality, it probably always has done, but increasingly dissatisfied employees are looking to the Courts to redress perceived or real poor treatment at the hands of employers.  It is now estimated that 1 in 100 adults may be neurodivergent, yet only around 21.7% to 32% of autistic adults in the UK are in some form of paid employment, representing the lowest employment rate among all disabled groups. Despite a high desire to work, with 77% of unemployed autistic people wanting to work, according to the National Autistic Society many face significant barriers, including inadequate support, stigma, and inaccessible hiring practices.

Many employers recognise neurodiversity – differences in how people’s brains work – including conditions such as ADHD, autism, dyslexia and dyspraxia. For small employers, the challenge is often how to balance understanding and flexibility with the practical reality that the business still has work to deliver.

The legal starting point

Under the Equality Act 2010, many neurodivergent conditions can amount to a disability if they have a substantial and long-term effect on a person’s day-to-day activities. This means that employers have a legal duty to make “reasonable adjustments” to prevent the employee being placed at a substantial disadvantage.

Importantly, the duty can extend to when you ought reasonably to have known that a disability may be present, even if you have not been told. Ignoring clear signs may still expose the employer to discrimination claims.

Reasonable adjustments are often simple and practical. They may include clearer written instructions, changes to how tasks are organised, quieter workspaces, or minor adjustments to working patterns.

What Tribunals are saying

Several recent cases illustrate the direction of travel.

In Ms Bahar Khorram v Capgemini UK plc (2025), a technology employee with ADHD succeeded in a claim after the employer failed to implement recommended adjustments during her probation. Occupational health had advised ADHD awareness training for Managers and colleagues, along with clearer task setting and coaching support. The Tribunal found the employer had failed to make reasonable adjustments, noting that the recommended training and support would likely have helped the employee manage workload and expectations.

Another example is Duncan v Fujitsu Services Ltd, where an employee with autism struggled with verbal communication and meeting structures. The Tribunal found the employer should reasonably have allowed more communication in writing, and provided written agendas for meetings. These relatively straightforward changes were considered reasonable adjustments that could have reduced the disadvantage experienced by the employee.

Tribunals have also shown that workplace behaviour towards neurodivergent staff matters. In a more recent case involving a dyslexic employee with “rejection sensitivity dysphoria”, a Tribunal found that dismissive comments from a Manager, and a failure to make practical adjustments amounted to disability discrimination, resulting in compensation for the employee.

The clear message from these decisions is that employers are expected to engage constructively with neurodiversity rather than simply treating difficulties as performance problems.

Kindness and curiosity come first

For small employers, the most effective approach is often the simplest. If an employee’s behaviour or working style seems different, start with curiosity rather than criticism.

A constructive conversation might include questions such as:

• “Is there anything about the role that you find particularly difficult?”

• “Is there anything we could adjust to help you do the job more effectively?”

Employees may not have a formal diagnosis – and legally they do not necessarily need one.  If it is obvious that their behaviour and the way they interact with others and/or it is evident that they are struggling with the more conventional ways an employer expects them to learn the job, this could well mean that they are likely to be neurodivergent.

Creating a safe environment for those discussions can prevent problems escalating into disputes or formal grievances.

But expectations still matter

Being supportive does not mean abandoning standards. Employees are still required to carry out the core duties of their role. What the law requires is adjustment where reasonable, not the removal of all performance expectations.

In practice this means:

• explaining clearly what the job requires;

• considering whether adjustments could help the employee meet those expectations;

• reviewing performance fairly after adjustments have been tried;

If the employee still cannot perform the essential aspects of the role despite reasonable adjustments, taking a more formal process may still be appropriate.

Practical steps for SMEs

Employers can reduce risk and improve outcomes by taking a few sensible steps:

1. Focus on strengths as well as challenges, as many neurodivergent employees bring valuable skills such as creativity, focus or problem-solving.

2. Document conversations and adjustments so there is a clear record.

3. Review adjustments regularly, as needs may change over time.

4. Train Managers to recognise and respond appropriately to neurodiversity.

A balanced approach

Ultimately, good management of neurodiversity is not just about compliance. It is about creating a workplace where people are treated with dignity while maintaining clear expectations about the work that needs to be done.

Kindness and structure are not opposites. In many workplaces, the combination of the two produces the best results for both the employee and the business.

Three Legal Pitfalls employers should avoid

1. Ignoring possible warning signs

Employers sometimes assume they only need to act once an employee produces a medical diagnosis. That is not the case. If behaviour, performance issues or conversations suggest a potential disability, Tribunals may find the employer “ought reasonably to have known” about it. Waiting for formal proof before exploring adjustments can create legal risk.

2. Treating everything as a disciplinary issue

Where neurodivergence may be involved, tribunals often criticise employers who move straight to disciplinary action or dismissal without first considering support. Behaviour that appears difficult or unusual may be linked to a disability. A short pause to consider adjustments, occupational health advice or different management approaches can make a significant difference.

3. Failing to implement simple adjustments

In several cases, employers have lost claims not because adjustments were impossible, but because straightforward steps were ignored. Examples include clearer written instructions, structured meetings, additional training for Managers, or minor changes to working patterns. If adjustments are recommended – particularly by occupational health – employers should give them proper consideration and document their reasoning if they decide not to implement them.

The key lesson: Tribunals rarely expect perfection, especially from smaller employers. What they do expect is a genuine effort to understand the situation, consider reasonable adjustments and treat employees fairly while maintaining clear workplace expectations.

The guidance provided in this article is just that - guidance. Before taking any action, make sure that you know what you are doing, or call an expert for specific advice