Neurodiversity in the workplace attracts increasing attention, with conditions such as ADHD and dyslexia more frequently cited in Employment Tribunal claims under the Equality Act 2010. These claims highlight employers’ legal duties — particularly around making reasonable adjustments and avoiding discrimination.

The case of Mr T Shevlin v John Wiley & Sons Ltd [2024] is an ADHD employment tribunal case that shows how these issues play out in practice. The tribunal dismissed the employee’s claims, but the decision reminded SMEs and HR professionals of their responsibilities when managing neurodiverse employees.

This article explains the background, the tribunal’s decision, and the practical lessons for organisations of all sizes.

Background: The Employee, the Employer and the Claims

Role & diagnosis: John Wiley & Sons Ltd employed Mr Thomas Shevlin as a Senior HR Operations Manager.

Neurodiversity: He had ADHD and dyslexic traits but did not disclose them to his employer. Doctors diagnosed his ADHD later.

Performance issues: His manager raised concerns about spelling, grammar, and formatting errors. She described his work as “messy” and rushed, and she worried about the impression this gave to external stakeholders.

Claims: Shevlin claimed:

• Discrimination arising from disability (s.15 Equality Act 2010)
• Harassment related to disability
• Failure to make reasonable adjustments
• Unfair dismissal

He argued that the comments were unfavourable, humiliating, and degrading, linked to his ADHD and dyslexic traits.

The Employment Tribunal’s Decision

The East London Employment Tribunal heard this ADHD employment tribunal case in 2024.

• Disability status confirmed but non-disclosure mattered
  The tribunal recognised ADHD as a disability under the Equality Act, which triggered a duty to consider reasonable adjustments. Because Shevlin had not disclosed his ADHD, and no evidence suggested the employer should have known, the tribunal ruled that the company had no knowledge of his disability at the time.
• Causal link not proven
  The tribunal concluded that ADHD did not cause the spelling, grammar, and formatting errors. Medical evidence failed to establish a link between the condition and his performance issues.
• Harassment claim dismissed
  Shevlin claimed that performance feedback humiliated him. The tribunal disagreed. His manager delivered the comments professionally, focusing on workplace standards, and did not humiliate or degrade him.
• Disability discrimination and adjustments
  The tribunal rejected his claims of discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments. It found no evidence that his treatment related unfavourably to ADHD and confirmed that the employer had acted reasonably.
• Unfair dismissal claim dismissed
  The tribunal ruled that the dismissal fell within the “range of reasonable responses” open to a reasonable employer.

The tribunal dismissed all claims.

What This Means for SMEs and HR Professionals

Although the employer won, the case highlights important lessons for businesses.

• ADHD is a disability
  When ADHD substantially affects daily functioning, the Equality Act treats it as a disability. Employers must avoid discrimination and consider reasonable adjustments.
• Disclosure makes a difference
  Employers can only act on what they know. If an employee does not disclose their condition, liability for failing to adjust becomes less likely. Employers should create a culture that encourages disclosure.
• Reasonable adjustments must be considered
  Even though Shevlin lost, the duty to consider adjustments still applies. Employers should explore options such as adjusted workloads, communication styles, or performance management approaches.
• Feedback is not harassment
  Constructive, professionally delivered feedback remains legitimate performance management. Only intimidating, hostile, or degrading comments cross the line into harassment.
• Dismissal must be procedurally fair
  The tribunal accepted the dismissal because the employer followed a structured process. For SMEs, process matters just as much as outcome.
• Documentation is critical
  Employers need records of conversations, adjustments considered, and steps taken to evidence their actions if a claim arises. SMEs without HR expertise often fall short here.

Practical Lessons for Employers

So what can SMEs and HR professionals take from Shevlin v John Wiley & Sons Ltd?

• Raise awareness of neurodiversity
  Train managers to understand how conditions like ADHD and dyslexia may affect work. Awareness helps avoid missteps.
• Encourage disclosure
  Create a safe environment for staff to share neurodiverse conditions. Disclosure enables employers to explore reasonable adjustments early.
• Engage directly with employees
  Ask staff what adjustments might help them. Options could include flexible deadlines, written instructions, or alternative feedback methods.
• Assess adjustments proportionately
  Employers do not need to make every possible change, only those that are reasonable for the size and resources of the business.
• Follow fair procedures
  If dismissal becomes necessary, use robust procedures: clear communication, warnings, opportunities to improve, and consistency with company policy.
• Keep clear records
  Document adjustments considered, the rationale for decisions, and the steps followed. Evidence makes the difference in tribunal cases.
• Seek professional support if needed
  SMEs often lack in-house HR expertise. External HR consultants can guide adjustments, processes, and documentation, reducing the risk of claims.

Conclusion

This ADHD employment tribunal case confirms that ADHD can qualify as a disability under UK law. While the employer successfully defended the claims, the decision does not give SMEs a free pass. Employers must take disability seriously, consider reasonable adjustments, and handle dismissals with care.

The judgment also highlights the importance of disclosure. Employers cannot reasonably adjust for conditions they do not know about. Building a culture where staff feel safe to disclose, and training managers to respond appropriately, is just as important as following process.

For SMEs, the risks of getting this wrong are significant. Employers who act early — with awareness training, open communication, and solid documentation — can prevent disputes from escalating to tribunal.