When employers read about employment tribunal cases, it’s easy to assume the facts will be extreme. The case of Mrs S Stone v MA Business Limited is the opposite. There was no outright refusal to support a neurodivergent employee and no discriminatory policy. What the tribunal examined was how ordinary management decisions, slow action and one offhand comment added up to a dyslexic employee being put at a disadvantage.
That is exactly why it is worth reading. Good intentions did not make up for poor follow-through, and the same pattern could play out in almost any team.
The background
Sophie Stone worked for MA Business, a publisher, first as a freelancer in its events team from March 2022 and then as an employed Digital Event Executive from April 2023, on part-time hours. Her work mixed admin, marketing and event operations, including spreadsheets and an email marketing platform called Adestra.
MA Business accepted that she was disabled under the Equality Act 2010 by reason of dyslexia and neurodivergence. She told her employer early on that tasks involving complex data handling in unfamiliar systems were particularly hard for her because of her dyslexia, and her managers knew this.
The Adestra problem
The central practical issue was Adestra. Ms Stone explained that the way the system displayed and handled information created real barriers for her, and that this was linked to her dyslexia rather than effort or willingness to learn. She asked for support. The tribunal accepted that using the system was “absolute agony” for her.
Conversations happened, but practical change did not follow quickly enough. She kept being required to use the system, and alternative ways of working were not properly explored. The tribunal described the employer’s approach to her difficulties as casual and found that it had failed to make reasonable adjustments.
Why a piece of software matters legally
Under the Equality Act, a standard way of working, such as “everyone in this role uses Adestra”, is treated as a provision, criterion or practice (PCP). The questions are whether that practice puts a disabled employee at a substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled colleagues, and whether reasonable steps could have reduced that disadvantage.
For employers, this is the most transferable lesson in the case. Systems and tools can be barriers in their own right. “Everyone uses it” is not a defence. And an adjustment may mean changing how work is allocated or completed, not just offering more training on the same tool. Our guide to reasonable adjustments and your legal responsibilities sets out the duty in more detail.
The comment that became harassment
The second finding came from a single remark. Ms Stone had asked for a quiet breakout space at a summer party. In a later conversation her line manager said something to the effect of “get back in your work box”. The employer’s position was that it was meant to refocus her on her workload and was not intended to offend.
The tribunal upheld her claim of harassment related to disability anyway. Harassment under the Equality Act is judged on effect as well as purpose, and in context the remark violated her dignity. People Management reported that the judge described the comment as “understandably triggering”. She was awarded £12,000, made up of £10,000 for injury to feelings plus interest.
A comment does not need to be aggressive or repeated to cross the line. We saw a similar point in a case about ADHD and workplace banter.
What the tribunal did not find
It is worth being precise. Several of Ms Stone’s other allegations were dismissed, including complaints about the probation form and about how her request for a breakout space was handled. The tribunal also declined to infer that the employer’s wider decisions were made on discriminatory grounds, although it was critical of how her concerns were handled. This was not a finding that the organisation was hostile to neurodivergent people. It was a finding that specific, avoidable failures had real consequences.
Delay is a risk in itself
Running through the case is the issue of time. Concerns were acknowledged and discussed, but the barrier Ms Stone faced was not removed. Adjustments need to happen within a reasonable time. Prolonged uncertainty can itself become a failure to make reasonable adjustments, and for many neurodivergent people, not knowing what will change or when adds stress on top of the original barrier.
What employers should take from this case
The decision does not say employers must get everything right straight away. It does show what tribunals expect:
- act promptly once you know someone is meeting a disability-related barrier
- treat concerns about systems and processes as seriously as concerns about people
- think about how comments land in context, especially from managers
- handle complaints carefully and keep the focus on support, not on whether the person should stay in the role
Above all, it shows that neuroinclusion is shaped by everyday management behaviour, not just HR policy. We explore that in more depth in why neurodiversity strategies fail at manager level, and in an earlier dyslexia case, the FEAT tribunal decision.
You can read the full Stone v MA Business judgment on GOV.UK.
How Enna can help
Many of the problems in this case came down to managers being unclear about what they could change themselves, when to bring in HR, and how to talk about adjustments. Those are skills that can be taught.
Our Reasonable Adjustments: Putting It Into Practice workshop takes managers through real scenarios like this one, and Supporting and Managing Neurodivergent Employees covers the day-to-day conversations. When an employee is meeting a barrier and nobody is sure what would help, a workplace needs assessment gives you clear, practical recommendations. Our dyslexia in the workplace guide is a good place for managers to start. To talk through your organisation’s approach, book a call with us.
