Global ADHD conference: insights for HR – HR News

Summary

Emma Thompson, a leading neurodiversity lawyer, previews the fourth annual Global ADHD Conference (running 2–3 October across time zones) and sets out what HR and people leaders need to know about ADHD at work. The piece explains ADHD as a behaviour‑defined neurodevelopmental condition that can amount to a disability under the Equality Act 2010, obliging employers to make reasonable adjustments. Thompson draws on pro bono support work and a successful legal challenge to illustrate common failures: refusal to provide simple adjustments, misattributing ADHD traits to poor performance or lack of leadership potential, and the real human and business costs when organisations do not act.

Key Points

ADHD can be a disability under the Equality Act 2010 when it substantially impairs day‑to‑day functioning; employers must consider reasonable adjustments.
Common workplace failures include refusing sensory or remote‑working adjustments, misreading time blindness as disorganisation, and not implementing occupational health recommendations.
Real examples: refused noise‑cancelling headphones and quiet workspace leading to long‑term sick leave; denied promotion because of perceived inability to lead.
Tribunal precedent (Khorram v Capgemini) shows failing to implement reasonable adjustments after medical evidence can amount to unlawful discrimination.
A formal diagnosis or disclosure is not always required for a claim—what matters is whether the employer knew or ought to have known (constructive knowledge).
Consequences of non‑compliance include legal claims, tribunal costs, reputational damage, lost productivity, higher sickness absence and increased staff turnover.
Practical remedies: clear policies, manager training on neurodiversity, proactive adjustments, and communicating procedures so employees feel supported.

Content summary

The article outlines the legal and practical landscape HR must navigate when supporting employees with ADHD. Thompson uses case examples from her work and a tribunal ruling to show how seemingly small refusals or omissions (eg, not allowing extra exam time or denying reasonable workplace adjustments) can amount to discrimination. She emphasises that employers should assess individual needs, act on occupational health recommendations, and train managers to spot and respond to neurodivergent needs. The piece stresses both the human cost to employees (stress, burnout, leaving roles) and the organisational cost (legal exposure, recruitment costs, reputational harm).

Context and relevance

As awareness of neurodiversity rises, HR policies that were once seen as neutral can become discriminatory in practice. This is particularly relevant now: more employees disclose neurodivergent conditions, tribunals are clarifying employer duties, and public sector or educational policy changes can set precedents. For sectors competing for talent, getting reasonable adjustments right is a retention and reputation issue as much as a legal one.

Why should I read this

Quick and practical — this saves you the trouble of hunting down case law and real examples. If you manage people, you’ll spot traps in your own policies fast and get clear reasons to update manager training and adjustment processes. Read it to avoid legal headaches and keep good staff.

Source

Source: https://hrnews.co.uk/global-adhd-conference-insights-for-hr/