Promoting positive management practices for neurodivergent employees

Insight

19.06.2025

Some say that a bad boss is like a bad joke – you can’t help but laugh (or cry!). And while the internet is full of jokes, support groups (and even entire subreddits) about "bad bosses", the reality is no laughing matter. For employers, how managers behave, particularly towards neurodivergent employees, is a serious issue that can have legal, financial and reputational consequences.

This has become increasingly important in light of recent Tribunal decisions and subsequent media coverage. From reports of a manager calling an autistic colleague a “weirdo” to another repeatedly sighing at an employee with ADHD, the courts have found that such conduct can amount to unlawful discrimination. Looking beyond the comment-section debates on these cases, a clear trend is emerging, and there is greater scrutiny of managerial behaviour, particularly in relation to neurodivergent employees. As such, employers must understand how their managers’ actions can expose their business to risk.

What is neurodiversity?

Neurodiversity includes conditions such as autism, ADHD, dyslexia, and dyspraxia, which may affect how someone thinks, learns, or processes information. Recognising neurodiversity in the workplace means understanding that these are not deficits, but part of the broad spectrum of human experience and that some individuals may need tailored support or adjustments to thrive.

In the UK, it is estimated that around one in seven people are neurodivergent, meaning even small businesses are likely, at some point, to employ someone who is neurodivergent.

What does the law say?

Under Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, a disability is defined as a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on a person’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. This means that, depending on the individual circumstances, many neurodivergent individuals may meet the statutory definition of disabled under the act.

If someone meets this definition, employers – and, in turn, their managers – must not discriminate against them. This includes:

treating them less favourably because of their disability (direct discrimination);
applying policies or practices that disadvantage them without justification (indirect discrimination);
treating them unfavourably because of something linked to their disability (discrimination arising from disability);
failing to make reasonable adjustments;
harassing them because of their disability; or
victimising them for raising concerns or asserting their rights.

Importantly, even if a neurodivergent employee hasn’t formally disclosed their condition, the legal obligation not to discriminate will still apply if the employer knows, or could reasonably be expected to know, that the individual is disabled.

Some recent cases from the Employment Tribunal

Recent case law highlights the importance of employers ensuring that managers understand the impact of their words and actions – particularly towards neurodivergent employees – in fostering an inclusive workplace and preventing discrimination and harassment:

Robert Watson v Roke Manor Research Limited: the Employment Tribunal found that a manager’s repeated sighing and exaggerated exhalations directed at an employee with ADHD amounted to harassment and discrimination. The employee, who faced criticism for timekeeping and focus issues linked to his ADHD, was subjected to demeaning remarks and ultimately dismissed. The Tribunal upheld claims of discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and harassment related to disability, and emphasised that even subtle non-verbal behaviours can significantly impact an employee’s mental health and self-esteem. The Tribunal also found that the employer had missed multiple opportunities to intervene and support both the employee and the manager before the situation escalated.
Nicholas James v The Venture (Wrexham) Ltd: this case brings to light how comments towards neurodiverse employees can amount to discrimination. In this instance a manager said to an autistic employee (among other things): “Why can’t you be ordinary and perfect like the rest of us? But no, jokes aside, having always been something of a weirdo myself, I have some sympathy”. This comment was made after the Claimant had raised concerns about sensory issues caused by music in the workplace. The judgment emphasised the seriousness of discriminatory remarks made by managers and reinforced the legal duty to foster an inclusive and respectful working environment. The claimant was awarded more than £17,000 in compensation by the Tribunal.
Saunders v Peloton Interactive UK Ltd: the Employment Tribunal found that Peloton failed to make reasonable adjustments for an employee with ADHD. Although the employee had disclosed his condition to Peloton and requested adjustments be made, such as avoiding rush-hour travel and wearing sunglasses at work due to his sensory issues, his line manager, unaware of his diagnosis, later assigned him to customer-facing roles that increased his stress. The employee explained how he struggled with this and while the manager believed these roles would allow more flexibility for breaks, the Tribunal found that the failure to properly communicate and implement adjustments contributed to the employee feeling overwhelmed due to a “disproportionate amount of public facing work”.
Rooke v NHS Blood and Transplant: although the Claimant was not neurodivergent, this case involved mental ill-health and the impact of inappropriate behaviour. During a team-building exercise an employee had been compared by a colleague to the infamous Star Wars villain Darth Vader. The Claimant brought four claims against her employer for unfair dismissal, direct disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments and victimisation. Although the first three claims were dismissed by the Tribunal, it did agree that “anxiety and low mood” amounted to a disability under the Equality Act, and found that the Darth Vader incident was a detriment after the Claimant had made a protected disclosure. The Claimant was awarded almost £30,000 in compensation.

These recent cases show that the Tribunal is increasingly attentive to how both verbal and non-verbal behaviours, including what might feel like small comments and jokes, can amount to discrimination, particularly where neurodivergent or disabled employees are concerned. It will be interesting to see how far the courts will be willing to take this line of argument, but it is clear that employers must take proactive steps to foster inclusive environments and ensure that managers are sufficiently trained to work with neurodivergent employees and behave appropriately.

Tips for employers

Educate managers on neurodiversity – provide training that explains what neurodiversity is, how it may present in the workplace, and why inclusive communication matters.
Review policies and procedures – ensure your workplace policies, such as performance management and communication protocols, are inclusive and don’t inadvertently disadvantage neurodivergent staff. It might also be helpful to include examples of interactions that could be considered offensive.
Avoid assumptions – don’t assume you know how someone individually experiences their condition – ask respectful, open-ended questions and listen to what support they need.
Respond to concerns early – take informal feedback seriously. Addressing issues like dismissive comments or non-verbal frustration early can prevent escalation.
Document concerns and feedback appropriately – keep clear records of any concerns raised and how they are handled. This helps ensure accountability and supports fair, transparent decision-making.