This informal CPD article, ‘Reasonable Adjustments for Neurodivergent Employees: What the Law Requires and What Good Looks Like’ was provided by Own Your Flair, a coaching and training company supporting neurodivergent individuals and the organisations that work with them.
Here is a scenario that plays out in workplaces every day. A manager has an employee who consistently delivers excellent technical work but rarely speaks up in meetings, never volunteers for new projects, and seems to need every task spelled out explicitly. The manager begins to wonder whether this person has the initiative and ambition required to progress. A performance conversation follows.
What the manager does not know is that their employee is autistic. They are not lacking initiative. They are doing exactly what they have been asked to do, because direct instruction is how they work best. The unwritten expectation to read between the lines, to intuit what is wanted, to self-promote — these are neurotypical assumptions baked into how most workplaces operate. When a manager does not recognise this, they can inadvertently block a talented employee's progression, create unnecessary conflict, or trigger a formal process that ends in a tribunal.
This is not an edge case. It is happening in organisations across the UK right now.
The Legal Landscape in 2026
Under the Equality Act 2010 (1), employers have a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments for any employee whose neurodivergent condition constitutes a disability. The Act defines disability as a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on a person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Crucially, a formal diagnosis is not always required for this protection to apply. If a manager is aware, or ought reasonably to be aware, that an employee may be disabled, the duty to consider adjustments can already be triggered.
The Employment Rights Act, now in force, strengthens this further. It increases scrutiny on whether employers are supporting neurodivergent staff not just in policy, but in practice. Employment tribunals are looking for evidence that organisations have actively equipped their managers to deliver inclusion, not simply written it into a policy document.
The numbers make this urgency impossible to ignore. Tribunal claims involving neurodiversity discrimination have risen 95% over five years, with 517 cases recorded in the last year alone, a 19% increase from 2024 to 2025 (5). The average cost of defending a single tribunal now stands at £8,500 in legal costs before any settlement or award. Autism and ADHD were the most commonly cited conditions.
Equality Act 2010
What Does "Reasonable" Actually Mean?
The word reasonable does the most work in this legislation and it is the part most managers find hardest to interpret. In practice, it means an adjustment that is proportionate to the size of the organisation, not excessively costly, and genuinely removes or reduces the disadvantage the employee faces. Common examples include:
- Written agendas sent ahead of meetings
- Flexible working hours to accommodate executive function challenges
- Quiet spaces or noise-cancelling headphones for focused work
- Breaking tasks down into clear written steps rather than verbal briefings
- Allowing additional time for written responses rather than requiring immediate verbal answers
What often surprises managers is that reasonable adjustments extend into everyday management practices, not just physical environment. Something as simple as following up a verbal conversation with a written summary, or giving advance notice of agenda items before a meeting, can make an enormous difference to a neurodivergent employee's ability to perform at their best.
Why Managers Are the Frontline Risk
Between 15 and 20% of the general workforce is estimated to be neurodivergent. Yet research by VinciWorks (2) found that 35% of HR, L&D and compliance professionals say managers in their organisation lack confidence when discussing reasonable adjustments for neurodivergent employees. Only 39% of organisations have delivered any neurodiversity training at all.
This matters because managers are the primary interface between policy and practice. An organisation can have an excellent neurodiversity policy and still fail a neurodivergent employee entirely because the line manager either does not recognise what they are seeing, does not know how to respond, or interprets a neurodivergent trait as a performance or attitude issue.
Many neurodivergent employees will never disclose to their employer. Fear of stigma and lack of trust are commonly cited barriers to disclosure, which means managers cannot simply wait for employees to raise it. Where adjustments are absent, or where a manager misreads neurodivergent traits as a performance or attitude issue, conflict and burnout become real risks — often affecting capable employees whose needs were simply never recognised.
A Wake-Up Call for Tech, AI and Startup Leaders
This issue is particularly acute in technology, AI and startup environments. The Tech Talent Charter's Diversity (3) in Tech report found that while employers estimate just 3% of their tech workforce is neurodivergent, a direct survey of employees puts the figure at 50%. This is not a small population being overlooked. In many technical teams, it is the majority.
Neurodivergent employees are significantly overrepresented in roles that demand pattern recognition, systems thinking, deep focus and innovative problem-solving. These are the very skills that drive competitive advantage in a world increasingly shaped by artificial intelligence. In the age of AI, human intellectual capital is the differentiator. Organisations that create environments where neurodivergent minds can thrive rather than mask, burn out and leave, are the ones that will retain the talent that matters most.
What Good Looks Like
Good practice does not require perfection. It requires awareness, curiosity and a willingness to ask. A manager who understands the basics of how different neurodivergent conditions show up at work, who knows what a reasonable adjustment conversation looks like, and who creates the psychological safety for an employee to raise a need, already represents a significant shift from the norm.
The ACAS guidance on neurodiversity in the workplace (4), published in 2023, offers a practical starting point for employers. But guidance alone does not change how a manager behaves in the room. Understanding neurodiversity is no longer an optional extra for people managers. It is a legal requirement, a risk management tool and for forward-thinking organisations, a genuine competitive advantage.
We hope this article was helpful. For more information from Own Your Flair, please visit their CPD Member Directory page. Alternatively, you can go to the CPD Industry Hubs for more articles, courses and events relevant to your Continuing Professional Development requirements.
References:
- Equality Act 2010, Section 20. Duty to make reasonable adjustments. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/20
- VinciWorks (2025). Neurodiversity in the Workplace: 35% of managers lack confidence on reasonable adjustments as tribunal claims surge. https://vinciworks.com/blog/neurodiversity-workplace-adjustments-survey/
- Tech Talent Charter (2024). Diversity in Tech Report. https://www.change-the-face.com/neurodiversity-in-tech/
- ACAS (2023). Neurodiversity in the Workplace Guidance. https://www.acas.org.uk/reasonable-adjustments/adjustments-for-neurodiversity
- Irwin Mitchell (2025), cited in VinciWorks survey. Tribunal claims involving neurodiversity discrimination up 95% over five years. https://www.irwinmitchell.com/news-and-insights/newsandmedia/2026/feb/employment-tribunal-cases-linked-to-neurodiversity-almost-double-in-five-years
