A diagnosis does not automatically mean an employee is legally disabled under the Equality Act 2010. Many HR and People teams know this in principle. But a recent ruling from the Employment Appeal Tribunal shows how easily the line between the two gets drawn in the wrong place, even by a tribunal.
The case of Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd [2025] EAT 82 involved a young man with diagnoses of both ADHD and Autism Spectrum Disorder who applied for a role as an Animation Host with a holiday park operator. His application was unsuccessful and he brought a disability discrimination claim. At a preliminary hearing, the Employment Tribunal concluded that he did not meet the legal definition of disability under section 6 of the Equality Act. The Employment Appeal Tribunal disagreed and allowed his appeal.
The judgment, handed down on 16 June 2025, has several points that HR teams, People professionals and employers should take note of.
Lesson 1: A diagnosis carries more legal weight than many employers realise
One of the most significant points in this judgment is the clarification around what a diagnosis of autism or ADHD actually means in a legal context.
The original Tribunal accepted that the claimant had diagnoses of both conditions. However, it treated those diagnoses as relevant only to whether he had a mental impairment. It then concluded, separately, that his impairments did not substantially affect his day-to-day activities.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal said this approach was wrong.
Judge Stout was clear that a clinical diagnosis is not just evidence that a condition exists. It also shows the impact of that condition. A diagnosis of autism or ADHD reflects a clinician’s judgment that the person’s functioning differs significantly from the norm. Employers cannot simply set that aside when they ask whether the impact is substantial.
For employers, this matters because it closes a gap. Some organisations have used that gap, perhaps without realising it, to avoid engaging properly with the legal question. A diagnosis of autism or ADHD from a qualified clinician is meaningful evidence, and employers must take it seriously.
Lesson 2: Focusing on what someone can do is not a defence
The original Tribunal looked at what Mr Stedman could do and used that to balance against what he could not.
He had passed exams and completed a degree. On quiet trains, he could use public transport. He also had friends, could perform in public and, in some contexts, came across as sociable. The Tribunal weighed these strengths against the difficulties he described. On balance, it decided there was no substantial adverse effect.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal found this approach to be wrong in law.
The legal test does not ask whether what someone can do outweighs what they cannot. Instead, it asks whether the impairment has a substantial adverse effect on at least one day-to-day activity. To judge this, you compare the person as they are now with how they would be without the impairment.
The fact that someone with ADHD or autism can perform well in certain areas does not mean their difficulties in other areas are minor or trivial. Many neurodivergent employees are highly capable in some contexts while experiencing genuine and significant barriers in others. Setting those things against each other produces an inaccurate picture.
This principle should shape how managers and HR teams approach performance conversations, reasonable adjustments and any situation where a neurodivergent employee is meeting barriers at work.
Lesson 3: Even one affected activity is enough
The judgment clarified a further point of law. A claimant only needs to show a substantial adverse effect on a single day-to-day activity. That alone is enough to meet the legal definition of disability.
The original Tribunal appeared to take a broader view. It weighed the claimant’s difficulties across many activities before reaching an overall conclusion. The Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled out that approach. If an impairment substantially affects even one day-to-day activity, the test is met.
This has practical implications for employers. Mr Stedman found crowded public transport very difficult, which in his impact statement he linked to his autism and “the social anxiety it creates”. The Tribunal acknowledged this difficulty but treated it as too minor to matter. The Employment Appeal Tribunal called that reasoning perverse. Having identified a difficulty, it said, the Tribunal could not simply dismiss it without a proper explanation.
Lesson 4: Difficulties that look minor on the surface may not be
The original Tribunal concluded that many of Mr Stedman’s reported difficulties were the kind of things one might expect from somebody who is not disabled. These included problems forming friendships, difficulty with shopping and difficulty in social situations.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal found this comparison to be legally incorrect.
The right comparison is not between the claimant and a non-disabled person in the general population. Instead, you compare the claimant as they are with how they would be, hypothetically, without the impairment.
This is a subtle but important distinction. Someone with ADHD who performs above average academically may still experience a significant adverse effect, because without the impairment they might have done far better. What an observer sees is only part of the picture.
This matters in practice because many neurodivergent employees mask very effectively. They may appear to be managing well, or even excelling, in certain areas while the effort it takes goes unseen. We cover what that can look like day to day in how neurodiversity shows up at work. Masking does not reduce the impact of the underlying condition.
Lesson 5: HR teams and managers need to engage with the detail
The clearest lesson from this case is that disability assessments, whether formal or informal, need to engage properly with the detail of what an employee is actually experiencing.
The Tribunal quoted from the claimant’s impact statement. That statement described difficulties with forming friendships, concentrating, using public transport, joining social activities and communicating with colleagues and customers. However, the Tribunal then failed to address several of those specific points in its reasoning. The Employment Appeal Tribunal found this to be an error: having noted the evidence, the Tribunal could not simply ignore it.
For People teams, this is a reminder that documentation and decision-making around neurodivergent employees must be specific. General impressions are not enough, and neither are conclusions that rely on what someone appears able to do. What matters is the individual’s actual experience, so record it and engage with it properly. The 2026 camera-on tribunal case shows what can happen when an employer hears a specific need and does not act on it.
What HR and People teams should take away
The Stedman v Haven Leisure judgment does not make it easier to bring disability discrimination claims, and it does not mean that every employee with an ADHD or autism diagnosis will automatically be legally disabled. What it does do is clarify the legal framework in ways that have direct implications for how employers manage neurodivergent employees.
Diagnoses matter. The impact of an impairment on a specific activity matters. And the visible capabilities of an employee cannot be used to cancel out the difficulties they experience elsewhere.
Organisations that look at real workplace impact, rather than surface impressions, will be on firmer legal ground. They will also be building workplaces that work for a wider range of people, which is where the business case for neuroinclusion really sits.
How Enna can help
Most disability decisions are not made in a tribunal. They are made by a line manager, an HR adviser or an occupational health referral, often in a hurry. That is where we can help.
Our reasonable adjustments training walks HR teams through the legal definition of disability and what it means for real cases. For line managers, neuroinclusive performance management covers how to hold fair performance conversations when someone is neurodivergent, diagnosed or not.
If an employee has told you about a diagnosis and you are unsure what support to put in place, a workplace needs assessment gives you specific, documented recommendations. You can also book a call to talk through your policies with us.
