Skip to content
01904 437 680 info@torquelaw.co.uk Twitter LinkedIn
Torque Law Logo

Advice For Employers & HR Professionals

ADHD Awareness Month: What Can Employers Learn from Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd?

October is ADHD Awareness Month – a worldwide initiative aimed at educating the public about ADHD by providing science backed information and resources regarding the condition. This month provides an ideal opportunity for employers to understand their legal obligations in relation to staff with ADHD, or other forms of neurodiversity.

In this article, we discuss the recent case of Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd [2025] EAT 82 which serves as a timely reminder for employers of the Equality Act’s protective purpose and how the courts will apply that purpose in determining whether claimants’ neurodiverse conditions meet the definition of disability.

Background

Mr Stedman has diagnoses of Autism and ADHD and brought claims of disability discrimination against Haven after he unsuccessfully applied for a role with the company. At a Preliminary Hearing, the Employment Judge determined that Mr Stedman was not disabled within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA).

Section 6 EqA defines disability as a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on an individual’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

The EAT’s Decision

The EAT allowed the appeal and remitted the case to a fresh Tribunal.  In doing so, the EAT issued the following helpful guidance in considering whether someone has a disability within the meaning of s6 EqA:

  • It is sufficient if the Claimant has a mental or physical impairment that has a substantial (more than minor or trivial) adverse effect on just one day-to-day activity;
  • The Tribunal must not weigh what a Claimant cannot do against what they can do, either with reference to a single activity or generally in relation to all day-to-day activities;
  • In judging whether the adverse effect is substantial, the comparison is between the Claimant as they are and as they hypothetically would be without the impairment.

Further, the EAT gave guidance that a diagnosis of Autism or ADHD reflects a clinician’s opinion as to the extent to which that individual’s functioning differs to the “norm”. Accordingly, a diagnosis is a relevant factor for the Tribunal to take into account when considering whether the impairment has a substantial adverse effect.

Key Takeaway for Employers

This ruling potentially signals a claimant-friendly approach to interpreting disability in neurodiversity contexts, therefore, employers should take account of the following:

  • Be mindful that an employee may be considered disabled even if their condition only has a substantial adverse effect on one day-to-day activity – for example, they experience difficulty concentrating.
  • If an employee has a clinical diagnosis, this may be sufficient to demonstrate that their condition has a substantial adverse effect. Consider a referral to Occupational Health or undertake a Workplace Needs Assessment for advice on what, if any, reasonable adjustments may be necessary to support that employee. Some employees might not know what support they need, so don’t put the onus on them to inform you what adjustments they require.
  • Whilst the Stedman case related to Autism and ADHD, the guidance is likely to be applicable to other forms of neurodiversity, such as dyslexia or dyscalculia. Employers should also consider what can be done to support employees with these conditions and all forms of neurodiversity.
  • While this case shows that a clinical diagnosis can be material, equally a lack of a formal diagnosis does not mean the definition is not met. Consider how you can support all colleagues to achieve their potential, even if they do not have a diagnosis in place. This is key due to the significant waiting time many individuals’ experience for NHS referrals.
  • We would recommend all employers have a neurodiversity policy in place setting out the organisation’s commitment to its legal obligations, the support available to employees and recommended procedures neurodiverse employees can follow.
  • Provide mandatory training in relation to neurodiversity for all staff. This helps to foster a supportive and inclusive environment in the workplace.
  • Specific training for managers and hiring managers in the organisation, to make sure they have the skills and knowledge to implement reasonable adjustments in their team, and for those applying for roles.
  • To make the recruitment process more inclusive, provide clear instructions about the interview or selection process and what it will entail in advance. Be open to being flexible, and consider offering video interviews, providing questions in advance or allowing extra time.

An employer’s legal obligations in relation to ADHD and neurodiversity are not limited to one month. Organisations must create a neuroinclusive environment all year round to support colleagues that need it, and to limit exposure to potential costly legal claims.

If you would like support with training or advice on these issues, please don’t hesitate to get in touch with any member of the Torque Law team (info@torquelaw.co.uk / 01904 437680).

Back to top