An ex-Lidl employee has recently been awarded £45,000 after an employment tribunal found disability discrimination linked to rejection sensitivity.

At first glance, this may seem like a very specific case. However, for many employers, it highlights a challenge that is becoming increasingly common in the workplace.

How do you manage performance, behaviour and feedback when an employee experiences those situations very differently from what you expect?

In most organisations, feedback is treated as a routine and neutral part of management. It is something that should be delivered clearly, received professionally and acted upon consistently. In practice, this assumption does not always hold true.

What Happened in the Lidl Tribunal Case?

In the case of R J Toghill v Lidl Great Britain Ltd, concerns were raised about the employee’s behaviour and performance. These concerns were then managed through internal processes, including formal action.

However, the tribunal found that disability had not been properly considered. In particular, there was a failure to fully understand how the employee experienced feedback and workplace interactions.

This is a critical point for employers.

The issue was not simply whether the correct process had been followed. It was whether the employer had taken sufficient steps to understand the context behind the behaviour before making decisions.

This distinction is often where disability discrimination risk arises.

Why This Case Matters for Employers

Many organisations already have structured performance management processes in place. Managers are trained to identify issues, provide feedback and escalate concerns where necessary.

The challenge is that these processes are often designed with a standard assumption in mind. That assumption is that employees will interpret and respond to feedback in broadly similar ways.

This case demonstrates that this is not always the case.

When an employee experiences feedback, pressure or workplace communication differently, applying standard processes without adapting the approach can lead to outcomes that are not only ineffective but also potentially discriminatory.

Understanding Rejection Sensitivity in the Workplace

A key concept in this case is rejection sensitivity.

Rejection sensitivity is commonly associated with ADHD, although it can also be experienced by autistic individuals and others. It refers to a heightened emotional response to perceived criticism or rejection.

This does not mean that an employee is unable to receive feedback or improve their performance. It means that the way feedback is delivered, and the context in which it is given, can have a much stronger emotional impact.

For example, an employee may experience feedback as more personal or intense than intended. They may react emotionally in the moment, struggle to process the feedback, or feel anxious about future interactions.

From a management perspective, this can easily be misinterpreted.

What may be a neurological response can instead be seen as defensiveness, poor attitude or an inability to accept feedback.

Without understanding this distinction, employers risk managing behaviour at face value rather than addressing the underlying cause.

Where Employers Often Get It Wrong

This case highlights several common areas where organisations can unintentionally create risk.

Moving too quickly into formal performance management

When concerns arise, particularly in fast paced environments, there is often pressure to act quickly.

However, if disability may be a factor, employers are expected to take reasonable steps to explore this before progressing to formal action.

In practice, this means taking time to understand what may be driving the behaviour rather than focusing solely on the outcome.

Assuming feedback is neutral

Feedback is rarely neutral in practice.

Even when delivered with good intent, factors such as tone, timing, wording and the relationship between manager and employee all influence how it is received.

For neurodivergent employees, these factors can have a greater impact. What is intended as constructive feedback may be experienced as criticism or rejection, which can affect both response and performance.

Treating emotional reactions as the issue

When an employee reacts emotionally to feedback, the focus can quickly shift to managing that reaction.

However, this approach risks overlooking the trigger.

If the way feedback is delivered is contributing to the response, addressing the reaction alone is unlikely to resolve the issue. In some cases, it may escalate it.

Failing to consider reasonable adjustments

Under the Equality Act 2010, employers have a duty to consider reasonable adjustments where a disability is present, or where they could reasonably be expected to know one may exist.

In the context of feedback and performance management, this may include providing feedback in a more structured way, giving advance notice of conversations, allowing time to process information, or following up with written summaries.

These adjustments are often simple to implement, but they can make a significant difference.

The Link Between Neurodiversity and Performance Management

Rejection sensitivity is just one example of how neurodiversity can influence workplace experience.

More broadly, neurodivergent employees may process information differently, interpret communication in different ways and experience stress or pressure more intensely in certain situations.

They may also benefit from clearer structure, predictable expectations and more explicit communication.

When these differences are not recognised, behaviours can be misunderstood.

Over time, this can lead to employees being labelled as underperforming or difficult, when in reality the issue lies in how work is structured and managed.

This is particularly relevant in performance management, where expectations are often implied rather than clearly defined.

What Employers Should Be Doing Instead

This case does not suggest that organisations should avoid feedback or lower expectations.

Instead, it highlights the need for a more informed and considered approach.

Create space to understand context

Before escalating concerns, employers should take time to explore whether there may be underlying factors influencing behaviour.

This involves asking open questions, listening carefully and considering whether support may be needed.

Be more intentional in how feedback is delivered

Feedback should remain clear and constructive, but it should also be delivered thoughtfully.

Setting context, being specific about expectations and allowing space for questions can improve how feedback is received and acted upon.

Equip managers with practical skills

Managers are often expected to handle complex situations without sufficient training.

Providing practical, scenario based training on neurodiversity and performance management can significantly improve confidence and outcomes.

See our practical, scenario based management training or contact us for more information.

Recognise early signs

Changes in behaviour, increased emotional responses or repeated misunderstandings can indicate that something is not working.

Addressing these early can prevent escalation into formal processes.

The Wider Implications for Employers

Cases like this are becoming more visible as awareness of neurodiversity increases.

Employees are more likely to understand their own experiences and raise concerns where they feel unsupported.

For employers, this means that traditional approaches to performance management may no longer be sufficient on their own.

Organisations need to be able to balance consistency with flexibility, and process with understanding.

Final Thoughts

The Lidl tribunal case highlights a simple but important point.

What feels like routine feedback to one employee can feel like rejection to another.

Recognising this difference is not about overcomplicating management. It is about making it more effective.

When employers take the time to understand how employees experience the workplace, they are better positioned to support performance, reduce legal risk and create more inclusive working environments.

How Enna Can Support

Situations involving performance, feedback and neurodiversity can be complex and often require real time judgement.

At Enna, we support organisations to build confidence in managing these situations effectively.

We work with employers to ensure that managers understand how neurodiversity can show up in the workplace and how to respond in a practical and consistent way.

Our support includes neurodiversity training for managers and teams, workplace needs assessments to identify appropriate adjustments, neuro inclusion audits to highlight organisational barriers, and on demand advisory support for guidance on complex cases.

If your organisation is reviewing how feedback and performance are managed, particularly in relation to neurodiversity, we would be happy to support.