When employers read about employment tribunal cases, it’s easy to assume the facts will be extreme or unrelatable. The case of Mrs S Stone v MA Business Limited is neither.

In fact, this case is striking because the issues it raises are ordinary. There was no outright refusal to support a neurodivergent employee. No hostile emails. No overtly discriminatory policy. Instead, the tribunal examined how everyday management decisions, delays, and communication failures combined to place a dyslexic employee at a disadvantage.

For employers and managers, this case is a useful reminder that good intentions do not cancel out poor execution.

The background: Mrs Stone’s role and disclosure

Mrs Stone worked for MA Business Limited initially as a freelancer and later as a part-time employee within its events team. Her role involved a mixture of administrative, marketing, and operational tasks, including working with spreadsheets and using an email marketing platform called Adestra.

Mrs Stone disclosed that she was dyslexic. This was not disputed by the employer and was accepted by the tribunal as a disability under the Equality Act 2010. From an early stage, she explained that certain aspects of her role were particularly difficult because of this, especially tasks that required complex data handling and precision within unfamiliar systems.

The tribunal accepted that the employer was aware of her dyslexia and that it understood she was experiencing difficulty.

The concerns she raised at work

Mrs Stone raised several concerns over time, but a key theme was her difficulty using the Adestra email marketing system. She explained that the way information was displayed and manipulated within the system was challenging for her, and that this difficulty was linked to her dyslexia rather than a lack of effort or willingness to learn.

She asked for support and reasonable adjustments to help her manage this part of her role. These concerns were discussed internally, and there was some acknowledgment that the system posed difficulties for her.

However, what concerned the tribunal was what happened next.

While conversations took place, the tribunal found that meaningful reasonable adjustments were not implemented in a timely or effective way. Mrs Stone continued to be required to use the system despite the known disadvantage it caused, and alternative ways of working were not properly explored or put in place.

The tribunal was clear that the issue was not simply that a particular system existed, but that the employer failed to take reasonable steps to reduce the disadvantage once it was aware of it.

Why the software mattered legally

In legal terms, the tribunal treated the requirement to use Adestra as a “provision, criterion or practice” known as a PCP, which is essentially, a standard way of working that applied to employees.

The key question was whether that requirement placed Mrs Stone at a substantial disadvantage compared to non-dyslexic colleagues, and whether reasonable steps could have been taken to avoid that disadvantage.

The tribunal concluded that it did, and that they could.

This part of the decision is important for employers because it reinforces that:

• Systems and tools can amount to workplace barriers
• “Everyone uses it” is not a defence if it disadvantages a disabled employee
• Reasonable adjustments may involve changing how work is allocated or completed, not just providing training

The comment that led to a finding of harassment

One of the more sensitive aspects of the case involved a comment made by a manager during a work interaction.

The tribunal heard evidence that a manager told Mrs Stone to “get back in your work box” (or words to that effect). The employer argued that this was not intended to offend and was said in a light-hearted or informal manner.

However, the tribunal looked beyond intention and considered the context:

• Mrs Stone was known to be dyslexic
• She was already struggling with aspects of her role
• The comment came from someone in a position of authority
• And it was made in a way that undermined her dignity

The tribunal found that, in these circumstances, the comment amounted to harassment related to disability, because of its effect.

This is a critical point for employers. The legal test for harassment focuses on impact, not just intent. A comment does not need to be aggressive or repeated to cross the line. In the wrong context, a single remark can be enough.

What happened after Mrs Stone raised a complaint

Mrs Stone later raised a formal complaint about her treatment at work. At this stage, the tribunal examined how the employer responded.

Particular concern was raised about communications from the employer that suggested Mrs Stone should consider whether the role was right for her, rather than focusing squarely on how her concerns would be addressed and how she would be supported going forward.

Although this may have been intended as a pragmatic or supportive conversation, the tribunal found that, in context, it amounted to victimisation. The suggestion of stepping away from the role came shortly after she had raised concerns, and the tribunal considered it to be a detriment linked to her protected act of complaining.

For employers, this is one of the most important lessons from the case. Once an employee raises concerns about discrimination or disability, the way the organisation responds is scrutinised closely. Language that shifts responsibility onto the employee, or implies exit rather than support, carries significant risk.

Delay as a recurring theme

Across all of these issues, the tribunal repeatedly returned to the issue of delay.

Concerns were acknowledged. Discussions took place. But the disadvantage Mrs Stone experienced was not removed quickly enough. The tribunal made clear that reasonable adjustments must be made within a reasonable timeframe. Prolonged uncertainty and slow action can themselves amount to a failure to make reasonable adjustments.

This is particularly relevant in the context of neurodiversity, where uncertainty and lack of clarity can exacerbate stress and difficulty at work.

What employers should take from this case

The decision in Stone v MA Business Limited does not suggest that employers must get everything right immediately. What it does show is that tribunals expect employers to:

• Act promptly once they are aware of disability or neurodiversity related difficulties
• Take concerns about the use and barriers of systems and processes seriously
• Be mindful of how comments may land in context and the language used
• Handle complaints carefully and neutrally
• Avoid delay where disadvantage is ongoing

Most importantly, it reinforces that neurodiversity is not just an HR issue. It is shaped by everyday management behaviour.

Why this matters for managers

Many of the issues in this case arose not from policy gaps, but from managers lacking clarity about:

• What they could do themselves
• When to escalate this to HR
• And how to communicate appropriately

This is why manager training matters.

At Enna, our Neuroinclusion for Managers Course focuses on helping managers respond confidently and practically to real-world situations like those raised in this case. We work with organisations to reduce risk, improve confidence, and create workplaces where neurodivergent employees can genuinely perform at their best.

If you’d like to discuss our training or explore how your organisation supports neurodivergent employees, we’d be happy to talk. Use this form to contact us.