ADHD in the workplace: lessons for employers following tribunal

A woman with a diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) whose employer failed to make reasonable adjustments for her neuro-divergent condition has been awarded more than £24,000 in compensation.

The remedy decision by Employment Judge Tim Adkin, heading a panel at London Central Employment Tribunal, comes six months after the original liability decision in the case of Bahar Khorram v Capgemini UK plc, in which Ms Khorram succeeded in five reasonable adjustments claims.

Ms Khorram is a cloud technologist with more than 25 years’ experience in technology companies in the US and London. In 2022 she was diagnosed with ADHD which in particular affected her attention: she could be easily distracted, but if she was interested in something, she could become too involved in it. She found it helpful at work to be given clear guidance and expectations; she struggled when tasks or objectives were presented in an ambiguous fashion due to her tendency to over-complicate them.

In June 2023 she took a job at Capgemini UK plc as Presales Market Lead, on a salary of £120,000 plus benefits. During her six-month probation period, which was extended twice, she struggled to meet objectives. She found it difficult to achieve an overview of different workstreams, as required; instead preferring to ‘deep dive’ into each area.

She told Capgemini of her ADHD diagnosis in September 2023, and she was sent to occupational health for a workplace needs assessment. However, the Tribunal found that the company did not follow through on some of the assessment’s key recommendations.

Ms Khorram did not pass her probationary period and was dismissed in February 2024. She brought a claim of disability discrimination, which was heard in May 2025 and the judgment handed down in July 2025.

The Tribunal found that Ms Khorram’s ADHD was a disability for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. It held that Capgemini had failed to make five reasonable adjustments which could have assisted Ms Khorram in passing her probation – including a failure to hold coaching sessions and training on ADHD with her manager and colleagues; a failure to set achievable and realistic tasks to prevent her becoming overwhelmed; and a failure to provide her with recommended training in time management and coping strategies.

Claims of harassment related to disability, and unfavourable treatment because of something arising from her disability, did not succeed.

In a remedy judgment dated December 2025, the Tribunal held that had the reasonable adjustments been put in place, it is likely that Ms Khorram’s probation period would have been further extended by around a month, but that ultimately there remained good reasons to believe that she would not have passed her probation even with the further support that should have been offered. It awarded Ms Khorram £10,000 for injury to feelings, and just over a month’s salary, plus interest, for loss of earnings, bringing the total award to more than £24,200.

There are a number of lessons for employers in this case. It is important to embed awareness of neuro-diverse conditions such as ADHD into the workplace in a way that enables neuro-diverse colleagues to do their best work. Employees with ADHD do not necessarily struggle with the work itself, but with the way it has to be done, so whilst relevant training and raising awareness is important, simple, practical steps can be just as helpful – such as ensuring instructions are clearly communicated, workloads balanced, and feedback welcomed.

Catherine Urquhart represented the claimant at the liability hearing.

23rd Jan 2026

Catherine Urquhart

Call 2010