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 reveals just how carefully — and how easily — the line between those two things can be misunderstood.
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 in June 2025, contains several important points that HR teams, People professionals and employers more broadly 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 is a principle that should inform how managers and HR teams think about performance conversations, reasonable adjustments and any situation where a neurodivergent employee is facing difficulties 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 struggled to use crowded public transport, which he linked directly 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 struggles 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 face a significant adverse effect from their condition, because without it they might have done far better. What an observer sees is not the full picture.
This matters in practice because neurodivergent employees often mask their difficulties extremely effectively. They may appear to be managing, or even thriving, in certain areas, while the effort required to do so goes largely unseen. That masking does not reduce the impact of the underlying condition.
Lesson 5: HR teams and managers need to engage with the detail
Perhaps 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.
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 approach neurodiversity through that lens, understanding workplace impact rather than relying on surface-level impressions, will be better placed legally, and will be building workplaces that genuinely work for a wider range of people.
How Enna Can Help
Navigating the intersection of neurodiversity and employment law can be complex, particularly as the legal landscape continues to develop.
At Enna, we support HR and People teams to build the manager confidence, practical knowledge and inclusive processes needed to handle these situations well. That includes understanding how conditions like ADHD and autism manifest in the workplace, how to approach conversations about support, and how to design environments where neurodivergent employees can perform at their best.
Get in touch or explore our services to see how we could support your organisation.
