This article applies to England, Wales and Scotland.

Is ADHD or Autism a Disability at an Employment Tribunal?

In brief: Often, but a diagnosis does not decide it. Under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 you are disabled if an impairment has a substantial, long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. In 2025 the EAT held that a diagnosis of ADHD or autism is evidence pointing towards that effect, judged against how you would be without the condition.

Last updated: September 2026

By Yerty | Reviewed against the Equality Act 2010, the EAT's decision in Stedman v Haven Leisure, and Yerty's analysis of published tribunal decisions.

You have a diagnosis, or you are waiting for one, and something has happened at work that you believe is connected to it. If the employer disputes that you are disabled, one of the threshold questions in the claim is whether you meet the Equality Act definition, and the answer turns on what your condition does to you day to day, not on the name of the condition.

This guide sets out what the Equality Act requires, what the Employment Appeal Tribunal said in 2025 about ADHD and autism specifically, what you will be asked to show, and what published judgments say about how these cases have changed.

Is ADHD or autism a disability under the Equality Act?

It can be, and often is, but no condition other than a handful of deemed ones is a disability automatically. The test is in section 6(1) of the Equality Act 2010:

"A person (P) has a disability if (a) P has a physical or mental impairment, and (b) the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on P's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities."

Three parts of that carry the weight:

"Substantial" means more than minor or trivial (section 212(1)).
"Long-term" means the effect has lasted twelve months, is likely to last twelve months, or is likely to last for the rest of your life (Schedule 1, paragraph 2). For a lifelong neurodevelopmental condition this limb may be relatively straightforward, but it remains part of the test.
"Normal day-to-day activities" is not defined in the Act. The government guidance on the definition of disability gives examples that include communication, concentration, organisation, social interaction and managing time.

Two further rules matter for neurodivergent conditions. Where an impairment is treated or corrected, the effect is judged as it would be without the treatment (Schedule 1, paragraph 5), so the fact that medication controls the effects is not, on its own, a reason you fall outside it. And the guidance says that coping strategies a person has developed can be taken into account, but not where they might break down under pressure or in unfamiliar circumstances. Masking may therefore be relevant when considering coping strategies and what happens when they stop working.

ACAS puts the general position plainly: being neurodivergent will often amount to a disability under the Equality Act 2010. Often is not always, and the tribunal decides case by case.

Does a diagnosis prove it?

No, but it is evidence, and the Employment Appeal Tribunal said in 2025 that it points towards the effect the Act requires.

In Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd [2025] EAT 82 the claimant had diagnoses of autism spectrum disorder and ADHD. The employment tribunal found he was not disabled, reasoning in part by weighing the things he could do against the things he found difficult. The EAT overturned that. Its holdings, as summarised by Greenberg Traurig and Employment Cases Update, were three:

A diagnosis of ASD or ADHD is not merely the label for the impairment. It reflects a clinical assessment that the person's functioning differs from the norm, and so it "is evidence that points towards the impairment having a substantial, adverse effect".
The comparison is between the claimant as they are and as they would hypothetically be without the impairment. It is not a balance of what they can do against what they cannot.
A substantial adverse effect on one day-to-day activity is enough. The claimant does not have to show that most of their life is affected.

The tribunal still applies the whole statutory test, and evidence about the effect on day-to-day activities is central to it: what the condition makes harder, in what situations, and how that compares with how you would be without it.

What will I have to show?

Evidence of the impairment and evidence of its effect.

The impairment is commonly shown by the diagnosis, or, where you are on a waiting list, by a GP referral and any screening. A formal diagnosis is not a legal requirement; the Act asks about the impairment and its effect, not about who confirmed it, and ACAS says the same. In practice a contested case without a diagnosis is harder, and the tribunal may decide the question of disability at a preliminary hearing.

The effect is shown by evidence, and your own account is usually the centre of it. Where disability is disputed, the tribunal may require you to provide an impact statement: your written description of what the condition affects, in what circumstances, with what strategies and treatment, and for how long. Depending on the case, the following may also be relevant:

medical evidence, including any occupational health report the employer obtained, which goes to the effect and to what the employer knew;
documents from the time, such as emails, performance notes or adjustment requests;
witness evidence from people who saw the effect at work or at home.

For ADHD and autism the relevant activities are the everyday ones the guidance names, such as concentration, organising tasks, following instructions, managing time, and social interaction, described as they are for you rather than as a textbook would put them.

The comparison in Stedman shapes how to describe the effect. The question is not whether you cope. It is how your ability to do a given activity compares with how it would be if you did not have the condition. Strategies you have built to manage, and the effort they cost, are part of the answer, not a reason to discount it.

What does the employer have to have known?

For two of the main types of disability claim, the employer's knowledge is a defence. It is not liable for discrimination arising from disability under section 15, or for a failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21, if it did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know of the disability (Schedule 8, paragraph 20 for adjustments; section 15(2) for arising-from claims). "Ought reasonably to have known" is the test, and it can be met by what the employer saw and was told even without a formal disclosure.

Employer knowledge is a recurring issue in these cases. In Yerty's analysis of published judgments, the phrase "knowledge of disability" appears in 41.8% of disability discrimination judgments that mention a neurodivergent condition, against 33.6% of disability judgments generally.

Share of disability discrimination judgments, 2023–25, mentioning each phrase: ■ all disability judgments (n 1,362) against ■ those that also mention a neurodivergent condition (n 294).

In 2017–19 the knowledge-of-disability gap was 3.4 points (24.0% against 20.6%); in 2023–25 it is 8.2. Section 15 and occupational health show no gap. England and Wales, single-claimant merits judgments.

Evidence of what the employer knew, and when, goes to the heart of it:

what you told the employer, to whom, and the date;
any occupational health referral or report;
sickness absence records and return-to-work notes;
any request for adjustments and the reply.

How common are these cases?

Yerty's analysis of published merits judgments from England and Wales finds that references to ADHD, autism and dyslexia have more than doubled since 2017–19. Any of the four neurodivergent conditions (counting every term used for it, including Asperger's, ASD and ADD) appears in 8.2% of judgments in 2023–25 against 3.7%; ADHD went from 0.3% to 2.1% and autism from 1.7% to 4.1%. Seven of eight physical-health comparison terms, measured the same way, moved by under a fifth. Within disability discrimination judgments the share mentioning one of these conditions rose from 11.8% to 21.6%.

Share of merits judgments mentioning at least one of the four neurodivergent conditions, under any of the terms used for it, by year; the umbrella term (neurodivergent, neurodiversity) in amber; the three commonest physical-health terms, combined the same way, in grey. England and Wales, single-claimant.

Autism counts autistic, Asperger's and ASD; ADHD counts attention deficit disorder and ADD; dyslexia counts dyslexic; dyspraxia counts developmental co-ordination disorder. n 1,668 in 2025, still being published.

That analysis measures what judgments mention, not how many claims were brought or how often a claimant was found to be disabled. Irwin Mitchell separately reported HMCTS-derived counts of tribunal cases linked to neurodivergence rising from 265 in 2020 to 517 in 2025; its published method does not allow a like-for-like comparison, so it supports the direction only.

What kind of claim would it be?

Establishing disability is the gateway, not the claim. The claim is one or more of the following, and each has its own test:

Reasonable adjustments (sections 20 and 21): a provision, criterion or practice, a physical feature, or the absence of an auxiliary aid put you at a substantial disadvantage compared with people who are not disabled, and the employer failed to take reasonable steps to remove it. A common type of claim for neurodivergent workers concerns working patterns, communication methods, performance processes, interview formats, and aids such as software or written instructions.
Discrimination arising from disability (section 15): you were treated unfavourably because of something arising from the disability, such as time-keeping, a communication style, or a reaction under pressure, and the employer cannot show the treatment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
Direct discrimination (section 13): less favourable treatment because of the disability itself.
Harassment (section 26): unwanted conduct related to the disability with the effect of violating dignity or creating a hostile environment, which can include mockery of traits.

Which applies depends on what happened. Yerty's guide to disability discrimination claims and what the tribunal data shows covers outcomes and compensation.

What about the deadline?

The time limit is three months less one day from the act complained of, or from the last act where conduct extends over a period (section 123 of the Equality Act 2010), paused during ACAS early conciliation. The Employment Rights Act 2025 extends that to six months, but only where the act or failure complained of happens on or after 1 October 2026; for a series of acts, the date of the last act decides which limit applies. Waiting for a diagnosis does not extend the deadline; a claim can be started while an assessment is pending. Employment tribunal claims: what you need to know covers the steps and dates.

Where to go from here

If the employer disputes disability, the tribunal may decide that issue at a preliminary hearing before the full hearing, and you are likely to be asked to describe the effect of your condition in your own words. Keeping what you already have in one place helps every version of this claim:

the diagnosis, or the referral and screening if you are waiting for one;
anything you told the employer, and when;
any occupational health report;
any request for adjustments and the reply.

Yerty's Case Hub organises a disability claim around the section 6 questions and the type of claim. If the employer denies knowledge, or the medical picture is complicated, a solicitor or your union can advise on whether further evidence is worth the cost.

Frequently asked questions

Is ADHD a disability under the Equality Act 2010?

It can be. Whether it is depends on whether it has a substantial, long-term adverse effect on your normal day-to-day activities (section 6 of the Equality Act 2010). The EAT held in Stedman v Haven Leisure [2025] EAT 82 that a diagnosis is evidence pointing towards that effect, judged as it would be without medication.

Is autism a disability at an employment tribunal?

Often, but it has to be shown, not assumed. ACAS's position is that being neurodivergent will often amount to a disability under the Equality Act. The tribunal compares you as you are with how you would be without the condition, and an effect on one day-to-day activity, such as social interaction or communication, can be enough.

Do I need a formal diagnosis to claim?

The Act does not require one; it asks about the impairment and its effect, and ACAS confirms a diagnosis is not legally required. A contested case without one is harder in practice; a GP referral, screening results and your own impact statement are evidence the tribunal can weigh while an assessment is pending. Waiting for one does not extend the time limit.

What is a disability impact statement?

Your written account of what the condition affects, in what situations, with what strategies and treatment, and for how long. Where disability is disputed the tribunal may require one. It is not a medical document; it is your evidence of effect, and it sits alongside any medical evidence, documents from the time and witness evidence the case calls for.

Does my employer have to know I have ADHD or autism?

For reasonable adjustments and discrimination arising from disability, the employer is not liable if it did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, of the disability. No formal disclosure is needed if what it saw and was told should have prompted the question. Evidence of what was known, and when, matters.

Does masking count against me?

Coping strategies can be taken into account, but not where they might break down under pressure or in unfamiliar circumstances, and the comparison in Stedman is with how you would be without the condition, not with how well you cope. Masking may be relevant when considering those strategies and what happens when they stop working.

Are ADHD and autism appearing more often in published tribunal judgments?

Yes. In Yerty's analysis of published merits judgments from England and Wales, any of ADHD, autism, dyslexia or dyspraxia appears in 8.2% of judgments in 2023–25 against 3.7% in 2017–19, counting older terms for the same conditions, while most physical-health terms barely moved. The analysis counts what judgments mention, not claims, claimants or findings of disability.