Employment tribunals often reveal something much more interesting than simply whether someone “won” or “lost”. They show how workplace situations actually unfold when communication breaks down, processes become messy and disability isn’t fully considered.
A recent case involving ADHD and workplace behaviour highlights exactly how this can happen.
In Martin Madden v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the tribunal ultimately found that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed and discriminated against because of something arising from his disability.
But the case isn’t as simple as saying the employer got everything wrong. In fact, the tribunal accepted that the employer genuinely believed misconduct had occurred.
What made the difference was how the situation was handled.
For HR teams, managers and DEI professionals, the case offers some important lessons about disciplinary processes, mitigation and what happens when neurodivergence intersects with workplace behaviour.
A long-serving employee with ADHD
Martin Madden had worked for the Metropolitan Police since 2001 as a Quality Control Officer in the Police National Computer Bureau. Until the events leading to his dismissal, he had a clean disciplinary record spanning more than 20 years.
In 2022, he experienced significant mental health difficulties and was later assessed by a consultant psychiatrist.
The diagnosis was ADHD combined type, alongside anxiety and emotional dysregulation.
Medical evidence suggested the condition affected areas that many people with ADHD will recognise:
- Impulsivity
- Difficulty interpreting social cues
- Challenges with emotional regulation
- Struggling to judge how comments might be received by others
Those traits became central to what happened next.
Workplace comments that led to a disciplinary investigation
The disciplinary investigation focused on a series of comments made to female colleagues.
Some were messages that colleagues felt contained sexual innuendo or inappropriate humour, including jokes, compliments and comments that crossed professional boundaries.
In several cases, colleagues described the behaviour as awkward or inappropriate. One colleague said a message she received had made her feel genuinely uncomfortable.
The claimant acknowledged making many of the comments. However, he explained that he believed the conversations were friendly workplace banter, and that he had misunderstood the nature of the relationships.
He also linked the behaviour to his ADHD. In his explanation to the investigation, he said that he often struggled with social cues and impulsive communication, and that he sometimes said things before thinking about how they might be interpreted.
Once concerns were raised, he said he changed his behaviour and stopped making similar comments.
The disciplinary process and dismissal
The Metropolitan Police began a formal investigation.
Interestingly, the investigating officer initially concluded there was insufficient evidence for gross misconduct, although there was a case to answer for misconduct.
However, the matter was later escalated to a gross misconduct hearing, and Madden was dismissed without notice in February 2024.
The panel concluded that the comments represented serious breaches of professional standards and had caused distress to colleagues.
From the employer’s perspective, the decision centred on maintaining professional standards and protecting workplace culture.
What the tribunal decided
When the case reached tribunal, several claims were considered. The final outcome was mixed but significant.
The tribunal found in favour of the claimant on:
- Unfair dismissal
- Discrimination arising from disability
However, it rejected claims relating to:
- Indirect disability discrimination
- Failure to make reasonable adjustments
This is a good example of how tribunal decisions often sit somewhere in the middle. Behaviour may still be considered inappropriate, but the employer’s response must still be fair and proportionate.
Where the disciplinary process went wrong
The tribunal identified several issues that ultimately undermined the fairness of the dismissal.
Important evidence was not considered
Two key pieces of evidence submitted by the claimant were not included in the disciplinary panel’s documentation.
These included:
- a detailed legal submission from his solicitor
- a statement from his psychotherapist explaining the behavioural work he had been doing and the progress he had made
The tribunal found that these documents could have been highly relevant mitigation.
Because the panel never considered them, the decision-making process was viewed as unsafe.
The claimant’s ADHD was not properly considered
Although the employer accepted that Madden had ADHD, the tribunal found that the condition was not adequately considered when disciplinary action was being taken.
There was little evidence that decision-makers properly reflected on how ADHD might have contributed to the behaviour.
Given that ADHD can affect communication, impulse control and the interpretation of social boundaries, this was an important omission.
The process involved significant delays
The tribunal also highlighted that the disciplinary process took around nine months from investigation to hearing.
The delay had a clear impact on the claimant’s mental health, which meant he was unable to attend the disciplinary hearing in person.
Although he was allowed to answer questions in writing, the tribunal said this was not an equivalent alternative to participating in the hearing.
The impact on colleagues was overstated
Another issue was how the impact of the comments had been described.
During the disciplinary process, it was suggested that the claimant had made three colleagues feel extremely uncomfortable.
However, the tribunal found that this was not entirely accurate. Only one colleague reported feeling genuinely distressed, while the others mainly described the comments as inappropriate.
This exaggeration influenced how the seriousness of the behaviour was assessed.
Why the tribunal found discrimination arising from disability
One of the most important legal questions was whether the behaviour leading to dismissal was linked to the claimant’s disability.
The tribunal concluded that it was.
Medical evidence showed that Madden’s ADHD affected his ability to read social cues and manage interpersonal communication.
This meant the comments that led to disciplinary action were considered something arising in consequence of his disability.
Because dismissal was not considered a proportionate response in the circumstances, the tribunal concluded that discrimination had occurred.
Why the reasonable adjustments claim failed
Interestingly, the tribunal did not agree that the employer had failed to make reasonable adjustments.
One of the claimant’s arguments was that he should have been allowed a family member to represent him at the disciplinary hearing.
However, the tribunal decided that allowing proxy representation in this way would not have been a reasonable adjustment within the employer’s procedures.
This shows that not every requested adjustment will automatically be considered reasonable.
What employers should take from this case
Cases like this rarely hinge on a single decision. Instead, they highlight how several smaller issues can build into a bigger problem.
For employers, there are a few key lessons.
Consider neurodivergence carefully during disciplinary processes
When an employee has disclosed ADHD, autism, dyslexia or another neurodivergent condition, employers should think carefully about whether behaviour could be linked to that condition.
That doesn’t mean behaviour cannot be addressed. But it does mean that mitigation and context should be properly considered.
Ensure all mitigation and evidence is reviewed
One of the most significant issues in this case was that important evidence never reached the disciplinary panel.
HR teams should ensure that:
- All documents submitted by the employee are included
- Mitigation is properly documented
- Decision-makers have access to the full picture before reaching a conclusion
Strong processes protect everyone
Tribunals often focus less on the incident itself and more on whether the process was fair and proportionate.
Delays, missing evidence and inconsistent documentation can quickly undermine even well-intentioned decisions.
Supporting neurodivergent employees in the workplace
Situations like this are not uncommon. Managers often find themselves unsure how to balance professional standards with an understanding of neurodivergence.
At Enna, we support organisations to navigate these situations confidently through neuroinclusion training, manager guidance and practical support around reasonable adjustments and workplace communication.
The goal is not just to reduce legal risk, but to create workplaces where expectations are clear and neurodivergent employees are properly supported.