An HR co-ordinator at a hotel in Oxford had just reached the end of her probation period when a new general manager arrived. Within about two months she had been moved into a windowless room with no phone line, given payroll work alone, and dismissed. In Ghiotto v Hawkwell House Hotel Ltd, the employment tribunal found the dismissal was because of her ADHD, and in August 2026 it ordered the hotel to pay her £200,252. For any employer that treats probation as a quiet exit route, this ADHD probation dismissal case is worth reading closely.
The ADHD probation dismissal at Hawkwell House
Roberta Ghiotto joined Hawkwell House Hotel in October 2023 as a Talent and Culture Coordinator, covering a maternity leave. Her probation review was due on 16 January 2024, but it did not happen. That same month, the general manager who had hired her was replaced by a new one, Mr Sagar.
Early in his tenure, Ms Ghiotto told him about the symptoms she was experiencing and how they affected her work. She did not have a formal diagnosis at that point. At a probation review on 2 February, which the tribunal described as “unduly hostile and aggressive”, she became tearful and the meeting was adjourned. A wellbeing meeting followed, at which the manager said he would make any adjustments she needed. Her probation was then extended to April.
What came next is the heart of the case. For several days in February she was restricted to payroll only, placed in a separate room without a window or phone line, and colleagues were told not to contact her about HR matters. Payroll was where her difficulties with focus and concentration bit hardest. In March she asked to work from home two days a week and was told the business would struggle to put that in place. On 20 March she said in a meeting that her difficulties might be down to her ADHD. Her manager took external HR advice that evening. The next day, at a meeting where her ADHD was the only topic, he asked whether she had a formal diagnosis. She did not. She was dismissed the following day, weeks before her extended probation was due to end, with a letter citing her performance on the payroll week.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal at Reading upheld all three of her disability claims: direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The hotel had accepted that she was disabled by reason of ADHD at the relevant time, even without a formal diagnosis.
On the payroll restriction, the panel was blunt. It agreed that the manager “was setting her up to fail”. It also found that the earlier wellbeing meeting was more likely a case of “going through the motions” on advice than a real change of approach. And it concluded that the intention behind the advice he took in March was “to dismiss the Claimant because she had ADHD”.
The notes of that 21 March meeting proved decisive. They had not been disclosed when they should have been, and the tribunal called the respondent’s conduct “multiple serious failures of disclosure and honest explanation”. At the remedy stage it described the concealment as inexcusable, said the case would probably have settled before trial had the notes come out in time, and awarded £5,000 in aggravated damages on top of awards for injury to feelings and psychiatric injury. With lost earnings, pension, interest and tax, the total came to £200,252, plus costs on the indemnity basis. Personnel Today’s write-up covers the remedy decision in more detail.
Lesson one: a formal diagnosis is not the test
The tribunal found that the advice behind the dismissal rested on a misunderstanding: that without a formal diagnosis, there was no disability to worry about. That is wrong. Under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, the question is whether a person has an impairment with a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out day-to-day activities. A diagnosis is useful evidence, but it is not the gateway.
This matters more than ever. Many adults are still waiting for an ADHD or autism assessment, and some will live with clear difficulties for a long time before any paperwork arrives. If your managers believe “no diagnosis, no duty”, they will make decisions that look exactly like this one. The better question is practical: what is this person telling us about how they work, and what can we change?
Lesson two: probation is a support process, not a trapdoor
Probation exists to help both sides work out whether a role is a good fit. In this case it was used to build a record for dismissal. Restricting someone to the one task they find hardest, isolating them, and then judging them on that task alone is not assessment. It is a set-up, and the tribunal saw it as one.
The panel also listed the steps that would have been reasonable: more focused, intensive training and support on payroll, working from home two days a week, a quieter workspace, and extra time on payroll tasks. None of these is expensive. Good probation for a neurodivergent new starter looks a lot like good probation for anyone, with a little more thought about environment and pace.
Lesson three: the record you keep is the story the tribunal hears
One of the costliest mistakes came after the dismissal. Hiding a meeting note that showed ADHD was the only topic discussed turned a discrimination claim into an aggravated one, and the tribunal said the case would likely have settled without it. Notes of meetings about health, adjustments and performance should be accurate, kept, and disclosed when required. If a note would embarrass you in front of a judge, the problem is the decision, not the note.
What to do this quarter
Start with your probation policy. Check that it prompts managers to ask, early and in plain language, whether a new starter needs anything to do their best work, and that it says clearly that no diagnosis is needed to discuss adjustments. Build in a review point before any extension or dismissal decision where HR checks whether the person has mentioned health or neurodivergence, and whether adjustments were offered and tried in good faith.
Next, look at what happens when a manager changes: a new line manager should be briefed on any agreed adjustments and probation history. Then check that the advice you rely on, in-house or external, starts from the position that disability does not depend on a formal diagnosis. Finally, train managers to separate the task from the person. If someone struggles with one part of a role, the first question should be what support or change would help, not how to evidence failure.
Neurodivergent employees bring real strengths, and Ms Ghiotto had already worked through three months of her role before the leadership changed. Keeping talent like that is cheaper, and smarter, than defending its exit.
Hiring soon? Get probation right from day one, and widen your pool while you are at it. Enna’s jobs board puts your roles in front of more than 5,000 registered neurodivergent candidates, and you can post your first role free today.
