The Importance Of Getting Neuroinclusion Right

In our previous blog, we explored the characteristics of a neuroinclusive organisation and the benefits such inclusivity brings to both businesses and employees. However, it is equally important for employers to consider not only the advantages of neuroinclusivity but also the practical and financial consequences of getting it wrong.

A 2024 study by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) and Uptimize—a consultancy focused on enhancing wellbeing and collaboration through neuroinclusion—found that 31% of neurodivergent employees had not disclosed their condition to their line manager or HR. While 44% of this group cited privacy as the reason, 37% expressed concern about being stereotyped. Many also feared the potential negative impact on their careers.

These findings should be a wake-up call for employers. They highlight the risk of creating a workplace where neurodivergent employees feel unsupported or misunderstood. Without a safe and inclusive environment, individuals may feel compelled to mask their symptoms, making it difficult for employers to provide appropriate support. This, in turn, increases the likelihood of formal disputes and contributes to a toxic workplace culture.

Creating a supportive environment

The responsibility lies with employers to foster a culture of openness and support. Failure to do so can lead to:

We will now explore the legal implications of failing to support neurodivergent employees.

The legal position

Under the Equality Act 2010, employees who believe they have been discriminated against due to their neurodivergence can bring a claim for disability discrimination, regardless of their length of service. Discrimination claims can arise as early as the recruitment stage. Firms in the UK have faced employment tribunals due to neurodiversity-related conflicts. These cases often arise from:

Definition of disability

A person is considered disabled under the Act if they have a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. The impairment must have lasted, or be expected to last, at least 12 months.
Many neurodivergent individuals are likely to meet this definition and therefore qualify for protection under the Act.

Employer knowledge and responsibility

Employers must be aware that they can be held liable for discrimination if it can be shown that they knew—or could reasonably be expected to know—about an employee’s disability. While neurodivergent conditions may not always be visible, employers are still obligated to act if the condition is apparent or disclosed.

Where an employer knows or ought reasonably to know about a neurodivergent condition, they are legally required to make reasonable adjustments to remove or reduce any disadvantage faced by the employee. Failing to do so constitutes a form of discrimination.

Recent case law: Lessons for employers

AECOM v Mallon (2023)

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld a ruling that AECOM failed to make reasonable adjustments for a job applicant with dyspraxia. The applicant had requested to apply orally rather than through an online form. The EAT awarded £2,000 for injury to feelings.

Key Takeaway: Employers must consider alternative application methods when requested by neurodivergent candidates.

Duncan v Fujitsu Services Ltd (2025)

The Employment Tribunal found that Fujitsu failed to accommodate an employee with Autistic Spectrum Condition by insisting on oral work discussions. The tribunal ruled that this was a failure to make reasonable adjustments.

Key Takeaway: Communication methods should be tailored to individual needs.

Borg-Neal v Lloyds Banking Group (2023)

A manager with dyslexia was dismissed after using a racial slur during a race awareness training session. The tribunal found that his condition affected his ability to express himself and that dismissal was a disproportionate response. He was awarded £490,000 for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.

Key Takeaway: Employers must consider the impact of neurodivergence on behaviour and ensure disciplinary actions are proportionate.

Comment

Neuroinclusion is not just a moral imperative, it’s a legal and strategic one. Employers who fail to create inclusive environments risk not only damaging employee wellbeing but also facing significant legal and financial consequences. By fostering a culture of understanding, making reasonable adjustments, and learning from case law, organisations can build workplaces where all employees thrive.