Recent data show a dramatic rise in ADHD recognition in the UK. Between 2000 and 2018, there was a roughly 20‑fold increase in adult diagnoses and nearly a 50‑fold surge in prescriptions among men aged 18–29. As of May 2025, an estimated 2.5 million people in England are believed to have ADHD, yet only about one million have been assessed, with approximately 549,000 still waiting for assessment.
Usurpingly, we are seeing this increase in recognition and diagnosis feeding through into employment. Common impacts of ADHD at work are having difficulty with focus and sustained attention, impulsivity and hasty decision making, time management issues, procrastination, forgetfulness and regulation of emotions. But as with many neurodiverse conditions, there are also It can also bring creativity, high energy and high levels of resilience.
These issues are also naturally now arising in employment tribunal cases and specifically as to whether ADHD is a disability.
This is demonstrated in the recent case of Stedman v Haven Leisure which was an appeal against a tribunal’s decision that a candidate for a job was not disabled under the definition of disability in the Equality Act 2010 (section 6).
In this case, Mr Stedman was a job candidate with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and ADHD. He brought a claim of disability discrimination against Haven Leisure Ltd following an unsuccessful job application. The tribunal, at a preliminary hearing, acknowledged the presence of a mental impairment but concluded that it did not constitute a disability under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, as it did not have a substantial adverse impact on the individual’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
The EAT held that the tribunal had failed to keep in mind the following three legal principles:
- In judging whether the adverse effect is substantial, the comparison is between the claimant as they are and as they hypothetically would be without the impairment.
- It is sufficient if the claimant’s impairment has a substantial adverse effect on just one day-to-day activity.
- It is not permissible to weigh up a claimant’s ability to carry out one day-to-day activity against another day-to-day activity to arrive at some overall assessment of ability to carry out day-to-day activities generally.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal clarified that a clinical diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) or ADHD plays a key role not only in establishing the presence of a mental impairment under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, but also in assessing whether it has a “substantial adverse effect” on day-to-day activities. Such a diagnosis reflects a professional judgment of significant deviation from typical functioning, and tribunals must treat it as meaningful evidence of potential impact.
It underscores the importance for HR teams to view clinical diagnoses as more than labels – they can shape the legal context for workplace decisions and the duty to make reasonable adjustments.
If you need support in this area please do not hesitate to contact our Employment Law team who will be happy to assist. You can contact us by phone on: 0345 450 5558 or by email: enquiries@stephens-scown.co.uk