A former Lidl deputy store manager with ADHD was awarded £45,147 after an employment tribunal found he had been unfairly dismissed, discriminated against because of something arising from his disability, and denied reasonable adjustments during a disciplinary process.
On the surface it is a case about a pallet truck. Underneath, it is about something most managers do every week: telling someone they got something wrong, and then judging them on how they react.
What happened in Toghill v Lidl
In Toghill v Lidl Great Britain Ltd, the employee operated a powered pallet truck without authorisation or training. Lidl treated it as a health and safety breach and potential gross misconduct, which on its own was a legitimate concern.
What went wrong was the way the disciplinary was handled. Lidl concluded he had shown a lack of remorse and had been deliberately deceptive. He was dismissed, and on appeal was offered a demotion with a final written warning instead. Lidl knew he had ADHD. He had described rejection sensitivity, which he said caused him extreme anxiety at work and in social settings.
The tribunal found that Lidl had treated behaviour linked to his ADHD as misconduct, and had not accounted for differences in how he communicated, processed information and remembered things in a stressful hearing. It also found Lidl should have made adjustments to the process itself, such as allowing breaks or taking advice on how to run a hearing with an employee who has ADHD.
Why it matters beyond one dismissal
Most disciplinary and performance processes rest on an unspoken assumption: everyone hears criticism the same way, and anyone who reacts badly is choosing to. Lidl’s managers read the employee’s responses as a lack of remorse. The tribunal looked at the same behaviour and saw a disabled employee in a process that had not been adapted for him.
The process itself was not the problem here. Lidl had a genuine safety concern and was entitled to act on it. The problem was the conclusions drawn about the person, and the failure to adjust how the hearing ran.
Rejection sensitivity at work
Rejection sensitivity is often discussed alongside ADHD, and some autistic people describe it too. It means an intense emotional response to criticism, or to something that feels like rejection, even when none was intended. Some people use the term rejection sensitive dysphoria, or RSD.
It does not mean someone cannot take feedback or improve. It means the way feedback is delivered, and the setting it is given in, can land much harder than the manager expects. A person may react strongly in the moment, need time before they can respond properly, or dread the next meeting.
From the outside, that is easy to misread as defensiveness or a poor attitude. Our rejection sensitivity toolkit for people managers goes into more detail on what it can look like and how to respond.
Where employers get it wrong
Reading the reaction as the evidence
In Lidl’s case, the employee’s demeanour in the hearing became part of the case against him. If someone’s reaction may be shaped by their disability, treating that reaction as proof of bad intent is risky, and a tribunal will look at it closely.
Assuming feedback is neutral
Tone, timing, wording and the relationship between manager and employee all shape how feedback lands. For many neurodivergent employees those factors carry more weight. Constructive feedback given in a rushed corridor conversation can feel like a verdict.
Running a standard process for a non-standard situation
Under the Equality Act 2010, the duty to make reasonable adjustments applies to disciplinary and performance processes as much as anything else. Our guide to reasonable adjustments and your legal responsibilities explains the duty. In practice it can mean advance notice of meetings, questions in writing, breaks, extra time to respond, a written summary afterwards, or a companion the employee trusts.
None of these cost much. Lidl’s bill came to over £45,000.
What to do instead
This case does not mean managers should avoid feedback or lower standards. It means thinking about how a process will work for the actual person going through it.
Find out what is behind the behaviour
Before escalating, ask open questions and listen. If an employee has disclosed ADHD or another condition, ask what would help them take part fairly. A workplace needs assessment can give you practical recommendations quickly.
Plan how feedback will be given
Keep feedback clear and specific, but set the context, give notice where you can, and leave room for questions. Following up in writing helps people who need time to process what was said. What a manager should do if an employee with ADHD isn’t performing has more practical ideas.
Separate the person from the presentation
A flat or agitated response in a hearing tells you very little about remorse, honesty or commitment. Base decisions on what happened and what the employee says, with adjustments in place, not on how they came across under pressure.
The wider picture
Tribunal cases citing neurodiversity have been rising, and more employees now understand their own neurodivergence and know their rights. We looked at a different side of the same problem in our write-up of an NHS tribunal about ADHD and workplace conflict, where the employer won but the dispute ran for years.
Consistency still matters. But treating everyone identically in a disciplinary hearing is not the same as treating them fairly, and the law expects employers to know the difference.
How Enna can help
Most of what went wrong at Lidl happened in one room, in one hearing. That is a skills problem, and it can be fixed. Our neuroinclusive performance management training covers how to run performance and disciplinary processes that are fair to neurodivergent employees without lowering standards, and neuroinclusive management conversations helps managers give hard feedback well.
For HR teams who want to check their disciplinary and capability policies, we offer neuroinclusion audits. If you have a live case and want advice, book a call with our team.
