Disability Discrimination and ADHD in the Workplace: Lessons from Walker v Openreach Ltd (2025)

A recent Employment Tribunal judgment in Walker v Openreach Ltd (2025) has brought renewed attention to how UK employers handle disability-related conduct, particularly in cases involving neurodiverse conditions such as ADHD.

The case offers valuable insights into the distinction between different types of discrimination, the procedural expectations placed on employers, and the evolving legal protections for disabled employees.

Case Background

Mr Walker was employed by Openreach Ltd as a field engineer. He had been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), a condition that affected his concentration, memory, and ability to manage tasks. These symptoms had a direct impact on his performance at work, particularly in relation to timekeeping, task completion, and communication.

Over time, Mr Walker’s managers raised concerns about his conduct and performance. He was subject to disciplinary procedures and ultimately dismissed. However, Mr Walker argued that his difficulties were directly linked to his ADHD and that the employer had failed to take this into account.

He brought claims to the Employment Tribunal for:

1. Unfair dismissal

2. Discrimination arising from disability (under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010)

3. Direct disability discrimination

Key Events

• Mr Walker had disclosed his ADHD diagnosis to his employer and had requested support and understanding in managing his workload.

• Despite this, Openreach initiated disciplinary action based on performance concerns, including missed appointments and failure to follow instructions.

• The employer did not seek occupational health input or explore reasonable adjustments before proceeding with dismissal.

• Mr Walker argued that his ADHD symptoms were misunderstood as misconduct and that the disciplinary process failed to consider his disability.

Tribunal Findings

The Tribunal upheld the first two claims:

• It accepted that Mr Walker was disabled under the Equality Act 2010.

• It found that his dismissal was procedurally and substantively unfair, as the employer failed to properly investigate the impact of his condition.

• It concluded that Mr Walker had been treated unfavourably due to consequences of his disability — specifically, the behavioural and performance-related symptoms of ADHD.

However, the Tribunal did not uphold the claim for direct discrimination, noting that there was no evidence of discriminatory intent or bias. The employer’s actions were not motivated by the disability itself, but the failure to accommodate its consequences was sufficient to establish unlawful treatment.

Legal Significance

This case highlights a critical distinction in UK employment law:

• Direct discrimination requires proof that the employer treated the employee less favourably because of their disability.

• Discrimination arising from disability focuses on how the consequences of a disability — such as behavioural traits or performance issues — are handled.

The Tribunal’s decision reinforces that employers must consider not only the diagnosis but also the practical impact of a disability on workplace behaviour. Dismissal or disciplinary action linked to disability-related conduct may be unlawful if reasonable adjustments are not explored.

Implications for Employees

For employees, this judgment offers reassurance that:

• Legal protection extends beyond overt discrimination to subtler forms of unfair treatment.

• Employers have a duty to understand and accommodate disability-related symptoms before taking disciplinary action.

• Early disclosure of a condition, supported by medical evidence, can strengthen a claim and prompt appropriate support.

Employees facing performance concerns linked to a disability should seek advice promptly and request occupational health involvement where appropriate.

Implications for Employers

For employers, the case serves as a reminder that:

• Dismissal decisions involving disabled employees must be approached with care, consultation, and medical input.

• Behavioural issues linked to a disability should trigger a duty to consider reasonable adjustments, not disciplinary action.

• A failure to distinguish between misconduct and disability-related symptoms can lead to costly litigation and reputational damage.

Employers should ensure that managers are trained to recognise neurodiverse conditions and respond appropriately. Occupational health referrals, clear documentation, and meaningful consultation are essential safeguards.

A Broader Shift in Attitudes

This case reflects a growing recognition of neurodiversity in UK employment law. ADHD, autism, and other cognitive conditions are increasingly understood not just as medical diagnoses but as lived experiences that shape how employees interact with their work environment.

Employers who embrace this shift — by fostering inclusive policies, offering flexibility, and training managers to respond sensitively — will not only avoid legal pitfalls but also unlock the potential of a diverse workforce.

Conclusion

Walker v Openreach Ltd is more than a legal decision; it’s a reminder that fairness in the workplace means understanding the person behind the performance. As employment law continues to evolve, both sides must engage with empathy, evidence, and a commitment to procedural integrity.