Neurodivergent conditions in tribunal judgments have more than doubled; physical conditions barely moved
ADHD, autism, dyslexia or dyspraxia is mentioned in 8.2% of published employment tribunal merits judgments in 2023–25, against 3.7% in 2017–19, counting every term used for each condition. Seven of eight physical-health comparison terms moved by under a fifth. The umbrella term, neurodivergent or neurodiversity, was almost absent before 2021 and appears in 2.1% of 2025 judgments.
ADHD, autism and dyslexia appear more than twice as often in employment tribunal judgments as they did in 2017–19, inside disability discrimination cases and outside them, while physical-health terms measured the same way barely moved. The umbrella term, neurodivergent, is a recent arrival and still rare; the conditions it covers are not.
This analysis follows four neurodivergent conditions (ADHD, autism, dyslexia, dyspraxia), the umbrella term, and eight physical-health comparison terms through every published merits judgment from England and Wales, 2017 to 2025. Each condition is counted under all the terms used for it, older and current; the terms are listed under Method. It counts judgments that mention a term; it does not count claims, claimants, or findings that a claimant was disabled.
Summary
- Any of the four conditions appears in 8.2% of merits judgments in 2023–25, against 3.7% in 2017–19. ADHD (0.3% to 2.1%), autism (1.7% to 4.1%) and dyslexia (1.8% to 3.9%) all more than doubled; dyspraxia (0.4% to 0.6%) is rare throughout. Year by year the composite runs from under 4% in 2017–19 to 9.4% in 2025.
- Physical-health terms barely moved. Seven of eight comparison terms (cancer, diabetes, back pain, arthritis, epilepsy, migraine, multiple sclerosis) changed by a factor between 1.03 and 1.17. Asthma is the exception, 0.9% to 2.1%.
- The umbrella term is new and still rare. "Neurodivergent" or "neurodiversity" appears in no 2018 or 2019 judgment, reaches 1% in 2024 and 2.1% in 2025; the conditions are named far more often than the term that groups them.
- Within disability discrimination judgments, the conditions mentioned changed. Any of the four: 11.8% to 21.6%. Cancer 10.1% to 9.3%, diabetes 7.8% to 6.5%, back pain 10.4% to 8.4%.
- The increase is not confined to disability cases. Among judgments with no disability claim of any kind, any of the four rose from 1.8% to 3.3%.
- Employer knowledge is discussed more in these judgments than in disability judgments generally, and the gap widened. "Knowledge of disability" appears in 41.8% of disability judgments that mention a neurodivergent condition, against 33.6% of all disability judgments; in 2017–19 the gap was 3.4 points, now 8.2.
Population: merits decisions with written reasons, single-claimant, England and Wales, one judgment per case: 4,565 judgments in 2017–19 and 5,062 in 2023–25. A judgment counts if it mentions a term at least once, which is not the same as the tribunal finding the claimant disabled.
Year by year
Share of merits judgments mentioning a neurodivergent condition (ADHD, autism, dyslexia or dyspraxia, under any of the terms used for it) or the umbrella term (neurodivergent, neurodiversity) at least once, by year.
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.
| 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Any of the four conditions | 3.9% | 3.6% | 3.6% | 5.0% | 4.8% | 6.4% | 6.8% | 8.6% | 9.4% |
| Umbrella term | 0.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.3% | 0.1% | 0.5% | 1.1% | 2.1% |
| Any of cancer, diabetes or back pain | 8.9% | 8.2% | 6.9% | 8.4% | 8.2% | 9.3% | 7.9% | 10.0% | 8.5% |
| n | 1,220 | 1,462 | 1,883 | 1,551 | 2,354 | 1,957 | 1,819 | 1,575 | 1,668 |
The neurodivergent conditions are flat below 4% through 2017–19, step up in 2020, and rise in every year but one after that. The umbrella term is absent from 2018 and 2019, reaches 1% of judgments in 2024 and 2.1% (45 judgments) in 2025; the conditions are named far more often than the term that groups them. The three commonest physical-health terms, combined the same way, move within about three points of where they started and end where they began.
Share of merits judgments mentioning each term, 2017–19 against 2023–25, the four conditions and the eight comparison terms.
| Term | 2017–19 | 2023–25 | Factor |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADHD | 0.3% | 2.1% | ×6.3 |
| Autism | 1.7% | 4.1% | ×2.4 |
| Dyslexia | 1.8% | 3.9% | ×2.1 |
| Dyspraxia | 0.4% | 0.6% | ×1.7 |
| Any of the four | 3.7% | 8.2% | ×2.2 |
| Asthma | 0.9% | 2.1% | ×2.28 |
| Diabetes | 2.2% | 2.6% | ×1.17 |
| Cancer | 3.4% | 4.0% | ×1.15 |
| Arthritis | 1.6% | 1.8% | ×1.12 |
| Multiple sclerosis | 0.5% | 0.5% | ×1.11 |
| Migraine | 2.0% | 2.2% | ×1.09 |
| Back pain | 3.0% | 3.2% | ×1.05 |
| Epilepsy | 1.2% | 1.2% | ×1.03 |
n 4,565 and 5,062. ADHD rose most, and almost all of it is in 2024 and 2025: its 2017–19 figure rests on around fifteen judgments, so the level is more reliable than the multiple. Autism and dyslexia rose through the whole period. Seven of the eight comparison terms sit between ×1.03 and ×1.17. Asthma roughly doubled, so it is not the case that every physical condition is flat; it is the case that the neurodivergent conditions rose by a factor no physical term except asthma approaches. Dropping 2025, any of the four runs 3.7% to 7.6%.
Growth factor: share of merits judgments mentioning the term in 2023–25 divided by the share in 2017–19. Neurodivergent conditions in teal, physical-health comparison terms in grey. Line at ×1 is no change.
The ADHD base in 2017–19 is around fifteen judgments, so its multiple is unstable; the levels in brackets are the safer figures. n 4,565 and 5,062.
Inside and outside disability discrimination judgments
Share of disability discrimination judgments mentioning each condition, ■ 2017–19 (n 846) → ■ 2023–25 (n 1,362). Sorted by change.
Any of ADHD, autism, dyslexia or dyspraxia, under any of the terms used for the condition, against the three commonest physical-health terms. A mention is not a finding of disability.
| Judgments | Period | n | Any of the four conditions | Cancer | Diabetes | Back pain |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| With a disability discrimination claim | 2017–19 | 846 | 11.8% | 10.1% | 7.8% | 10.4% |
| With a disability discrimination claim | 2023–25 | 1,362 | 21.6% | 9.3% | 6.5% | 8.4% |
| Unfair dismissal, no disability claim | 2017–19 | 2,292 | 2.0% | 2.4% | 0.7% | 1.7% |
| Unfair dismissal, no disability claim | 2023–25 | 1,989 | 4.2% | 2.7% | 1.1% | 1.7% |
| No disability claim of any kind | 2017–19 | 3,719 | 1.8% | 1.9% | 0.7% | 1.3% |
| No disability claim of any kind | 2023–25 | 3,700 | 3.3% | 2.0% | 0.7% | 1.2% |
By condition, within disability discrimination judgments: ADHD 1.2% to 6.0%, autism 2.1% to 9.0%, dyslexia 6.4% to 9.8% (each counted on its main term only; see Method).
Within disability discrimination judgments, the conditions mentioned changed. Roughly one disability judgment in eight mentioned a neurodivergent condition in 2017–19; now it is more than one in five. The three physical terms are mentioned slightly less. In 2017–19 a disability judgment was more likely to mention cancer, diabetes or back pain than any one of the neurodivergent conditions; in 2023–25 autism and dyslexia are each mentioned about as often as cancer. This is a change in what these judgments mention.
The increase is not confined to judgments pleaded as disability discrimination. Among judgments with no disability claim of any kind, mentions of any of the four rose from 1.8% to 3.3%; among unfair dismissal judgments with no disability claim, from 2.0% to 4.2%. Both are a fraction of the rate inside disability judgments (21.6%), and of judgments mentioning one of these conditions, the share carrying a disability claim rose from 62% to 74%.
By claim type
Share of each claim type's judgments mentioning the condition, 2017–19 to 2023–25, each condition counted on its main term only. Claim types overlap; claim types with fewer than 200 judgments in either period are omitted.
| Claim type | n 2017–19 | n 2023–25 | ADHD | Autism | Dyslexia | Cancer | Back pain |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | 846 | 1,362 | 1.2 → 6.0 | 2.1 → 9.0 | 6.4 → 9.8 | 10.1 → 9.3 | 10.4 → 8.4 |
| Unfair dismissal | 2,813 | 2,771 | 0.3 → 1.7 | 0.9 → 3.2 | 1.6 → 3.5 | 4.3 → 4.8 | 3.7 → 3.6 |
| Breach of contract | 1,520 | 1,501 | 0.1 → 1.5 | 0.9 → 2.5 | 1.2 → 3.3 | 2.2 → 3.0 | 1.8 → 2.4 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | 1,531 | 1,813 | 0.1 → 1.2 | 1.0 → 1.7 | 1.1 → 2.3 | 2.0 → 2.5 | 1.9 → 2.1 |
| Working time | 776 | 1,048 | 0.1 → 0.7 | 0.8 → 1.5 | 1.0 → 2.1 | 1.3 → 2.2 | 1.7 → 2.1 |
| Race discrimination | 548 | 851 | 0.2 → 0.9 | 1.3 → 2.6 | 2.0 → 3.4 | 3.7 → 4.2 | 4.4 → 3.8 |
| Sex discrimination | 417 | 516 | 0.5 → 3.1 | 1.4 → 3.9 | 2.6 → 5.0 | 2.2 → 4.1 | 2.9 → 2.7 |
| Public interest disclosure | 405 | 627 | 0.5 → 2.6 | 2.5 → 3.5 | 1.7 → 5.1 | 3.0 → 5.4 | 2.5 → 3.2 |
| Redundancy | 333 | 347 | 0.0 → 0.0 | 0.6 → 0.3 | 0.3 → 0.9 | 1.2 → 1.4 | 1.2 → 2.3 |
| Age discrimination | 204 | 277 | 0.5 → 0.0 | 1.0 → 2.9 | 2.9 → 3.6 | 5.9 → 5.8 | 3.9 → 6.1 |
Autism and dyslexia rise in every claim type except redundancy, and ADHD in every one except redundancy and age discrimination (where it is one judgment falling to none). Cancer and back pain move by a point or two in either direction. Because claim types overlap, a judgment in the wages column may also carry a disability claim; the cleaner test of whether the increase is confined to disability cases is the no-disability-claim subset in the previous section.
Employer knowledge, within disability judgments
Share of disability discrimination judgments mentioning four legal phrases, comparing those that also mention a neurodivergent condition with all disability judgments in the same period.
| Period | Disability judgments | n | Reasonable adjustments | Occupational health | Knowledge of disability | Section 15 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017–19 | All | 846 | 73.6% | 66.2% | 20.6% | 42.3% |
| 2017–19 | Mentioning a neurodivergent condition | 100 | 80.0% | 69.0% | 24.0% | 40.0% |
| 2023–25 | All | 1,362 | 78.4% | 64.5% | 33.6% | 49.1% |
| 2023–25 | Mentioning a neurodivergent condition | 294 | 90.1% | 66.3% | 41.8% | 49.3% |
"Knowledge of disability" is more prominent in neurodivergence-related disability judgments than in disability judgments generally, and the gap has widened: 3.4 points above the baseline in 2017–19, 8.2 points in 2023–25. Whether the employer knew, or ought to have known, of the disability is discussed in two of these judgments in five. "Reasonable adjustments" shows the same pattern at a higher level, 90.1% against 78.4%. Section 15 and occupational health show no such effect: they appear at the same rate whether or not a neurodivergent condition is mentioned.
"Masking" appears in eleven of the 205 judgments mentioning autism in 2023–25 and one of the 78 in 2017–19; "camouflaging" appears once, in the later period. The word also has a distinct meaning under Schedule 1 (an impairment whose effects are masked by treatment), and the eleven have not yet been read to separate the two, so no rate is drawn from them.
Method and limits
Population. Merits decisions with written reasons, single-claimant, England and Wales, one judgment per case, from the public register of employment tribunal decisions on GOV.UK. No length band. Annual n from 1,220 (2017) to 2,354 (2021).
Counting. A judgment counts once if it mentions a term at least once, case-insensitive except for the acronyms ADD and DCD; "section 15" is counted only in an Equality Act context. Each condition is counted under every term used for it: autism = autism, autistic, ASD, autism spectrum, Asperger; ADHD = ADHD, attention deficit (hyperactivity) disorder, ADD; dyslexia = dyslexia, dyslexic; dyspraxia = dyspraxia, dyspraxic, developmental co-ordination disorder, DCD. Counting the older terms raises the early-period levels (autism from 1.0% to 1.7%) but not the direction or size of the rise. The by-condition figures in the disability and claim-type tables count each condition on its main term only; the any-of-the-four figures count every term. The eight physical-health terms are comparison terms chosen for stable vocabulary, not controls.
A mention is not a finding. A judgment mentioning autism may have found the claimant disabled, found they were not, or recorded the condition in passing, and the text cannot separate more workplace disputes from more diagnosis and disclosure. Cancer and multiple sclerosis are deemed disabilities under Schedule 1 to the Equality Act 2010 and need no argument about effect; a contested condition generates more text, so part of the rise may be argument about disability status rather than more claimants with the condition.
Late years are provisional. 2025 judgments are still being published. Dropping 2025 lowers the any-of-the-four figure from 8.2% to 7.6% and autism from 4.1% to 3.7%; the finding holds on either.
Claim types overlap. A judgment with several claims appears under each of them; the by-claim-type columns do not sum to the population.
Frequently asked questions
How often do employment tribunal judgments mention ADHD or autism?
In merits judgments from England and Wales, 2023–25: ADHD in 2.1% (0.3% in 2017–19), autism in 4.1% (1.7%), dyslexia in 3.9% (1.8%), counting older terms such as Asperger's and ADD; any of the four in 8.2% (3.7%). A mention is not a finding that the claimant was disabled, and does not count claims or claimants.
Do tribunals use the word "neurodivergent"?
Rarely, and only recently. "Neurodivergent" or "neurodiversity" appears in 2.1% of merits judgments in 2025, against none at all in 2018 and 2019, while one of the four conditions is named in 9.4%. Specific diagnostic terms remain far more common than the umbrella terminology, which has itself only recently entered judgment text.
Are physical conditions mentioned less than they were?
Mostly not. Seven of eight comparison terms (cancer, diabetes, back pain, arthritis, epilepsy, migraine, multiple sclerosis) changed by a factor between 1.03 and 1.17 across all merits judgments; asthma roughly doubled, from 0.9% to 2.1%. Within disability discrimination judgments the mention rates of cancer, diabetes and back pain fell slightly while the neurodivergent conditions roughly doubled.
Is the rise just more disability discrimination claims?
Not only. Disability claims did grow as a share of the population, and most mentions are in them. But among judgments with no disability claim of any kind, mentions of one of the four conditions also rose, from 1.8% to 3.3%, so the increase is not confined to cases pleaded as disability discrimination.
Which neurodivergent condition rose most?
ADHD, from 0.3% to 2.1% of merits judgments, almost all of it in 2024 and 2025. The 2017–19 base is around fifteen judgments, so the multiple is unstable; the levels are the safer figures. Autism rose from 1.7% to 4.1% and dyslexia from 1.8% to 3.9%, both through the whole period rather than in a late step.
What legal issues appear alongside these conditions?
Employer knowledge. Within disability discrimination judgments, "knowledge of disability" appears in 41.8% of those that mention a neurodivergent condition against 33.6% of all disability judgments in 2023–25, a gap that has widened from 3.4 to 8.2 points since 2017–19. Reasonable adjustments show the same pattern (90.1% against 78.4%); section 15 and occupational health do not.
Does the analysis count older terms such as Asperger's?
Yes. Each condition is counted under every term used for it: autism includes autistic, Asperger's and ASD; ADHD includes attention deficit disorder and ADD; dyslexia includes dyslexic; dyspraxia includes developmental co-ordination disorder. Counting them raises the early levels, autism from 1.0% to 1.7%, but the direction and size of the rise are much the same.
Sources
Analysis of published Employment Tribunal decisions, 2017 to 2025, drawn from the public register on GOV.UK under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Population: single-claimant merits decisions with written reasons, England and Wales, one judgment per case; 4,565 judgments in 2017–19 and 5,062 in 2023–25.
- Employment tribunal decisions, GOV.UK
- Equality Act 2010, section 6 and Schedule 1
- Irwin Mitchell: Employment tribunal cases linked to neurodiversity almost double in five years (February 2026), HMCTS-derived case counts (265 in 2020 to 517 in 2025); not like-for-like with this judgment-text measure, cited for direction only
Related reading: is ADHD or autism a disability at an employment tribunal, disability discrimination claims: what the tribunal data shows, and stress, anxiety and depression in tribunal judgments.