What the Capgemini tribunal teaches us about reasonable adjustments for neurodiverse employees
Summary
An employment tribunal found that Capgemini failed to make reasonable adjustments for a cloud technologist with ADHD. After the employee disclosed she was taking ADHD medication and an occupational health assessment recommended team training and individual coaching, the employer did not implement key measures. The claimant was recognised as having a substantial disadvantage in meeting deadlines and multitasking; the tribunal held that the organisation breached its duty by not providing realistic tasks, neurodiversity awareness training and coaching on time-management and communication. The ruling emphasises that commissioning assessments is not enough — employers must act on their recommendations and embed neuroinclusive practices.
Source
Key Points
- The tribunal found Capgemini failed to make reasonable adjustments after an occupational health report recommended team training and coaching.
- The employee was recognised as having a substantial disadvantage with multitasking and meeting deadlines due to ADHD.
- Recommended measures not implemented included achievable task allocation, neurodiversity awareness training and time-management coaching.
- Making adjustments means removing or reducing disadvantage compared with neurotypical colleagues — assessments must be followed by action.
- Practical adjustments often include reminders, extended deadlines, workload awareness, scheduled breaks, manager–employee coaching and physical changes (eg standing desks).
- Training should be inclusive by default (team-wide) to avoid singling out individuals and to foster psychological safety.
- Employers should offer confidential conversations, respect non-disclosure, and seek advice from occupational health and neurodiversity charities.
Context and relevance
This case is a clear reminder for HR teams and line managers that the Equality Act 2010 duty to consider reasonable adjustments is practical and enforceable. With increasing awareness of neurodiversity in the workforce, organisations must move from reactive, checkbox approaches to proactive, organisation-wide practices that normalise support. The ruling is relevant to ongoing trends in workplace inclusion, hybrid working and performance management: failure to follow occupational health recommendations — or to design inclusive training — risks legal exposure and damaged trust.
Why should I read this?
Because it’s a sharp wake-up call. If you manage people or shape HR policy, this ruling shows how small lapses — not acting on an occupational health report, making training feel like it’s about one person — can become expensive and corrosive. We’ve unpacked the essentials so you can spot the risks and fix them without wading through the whole judgement.
Practical takeaways
- Act on occupational health recommendations and document follow-up steps.
- Deliver team-wide neurodiversity education so individuals aren’t singled out.
- Offer tailored, practical adjustments (deadlines, workload allocation, breaks, coaching).
- Create confidential, non-pressured spaces for disclosure; respect choices to remain undiagnosed.
- Use external charities and occupational health as partners, not just diagnosticians.